^^RY  or  PRiNCf^ 


•^iOGICAL  SEW\*^ 


HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN 
THEOPHAGY 


A  SHORT   HISTORY  OF 
CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 


BY 
PRESERVED  SMITH,  Ph.D. 


CHICAGO  LONDON 

THE  OPEN  COURT  PUBLISHING  CO. 

1922 


Copyright,  1922 

The  Open  Court  Publishing  Company 

Chicago 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 
All  Rights  Reserved 


THE   TORCH    PRESS 

CEDAR    RAPIDS 

IOWA 


TO    MY    SISTER 

WINIFRED  SMITH 
with   Gratitude   and   Admiration 


PREFACE 

On  December  27,  19 15,  I  read,  by  request,  be- 
fore the  American  Society  of  Church  History,  at 
its  annual  meeting  in  New  York,  a  paper  on  "The 
Evolution  of  Luther's  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist." 
In  that  paper  originated  the  present  study;  for, 
with  the  understanding  of  the  sacramentarian  con- 
troversies of  the  Reformation,  came  the  clear  per- 
ception that  the  dogma  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass, 
repudiated  by  nearly  all  the  Reformers,  and  the 
dogma  of  the  Real  Presence,  repudiated  by  some 
of  them,  were  in  reality  far  more  ancient  than 
medieval  scholasticism ;  that  they  were,  in  fact,  the 
teachings  of  the  primitive  church,  and  that,  push- 
ing our  inquiry  ever  further  back,  they  had 
been  derived  by  her  from  a  pre-Christian,  and 
from  a  very  remote,  antiquity.  The  idea  of  the 
god  sacrificed  to  himself,  that  his  flesh  might  be 
eaten  by  worshippers  thus  assured  of  partaking  of 
his  divinity,  arose  at  the  dawn  of  religion,  was 
revived  by  the  mystic  cults  of  the  Greeks,  and  from 
them  was  borrowed  by  Paul  and  implanted,  along 
with  the  myth  of  the  dying  and  rising  Savior  God, 
deep  in  the  soil  of  the  early  church.  Though  for- 
eign to  Jesus,  whose  beautiful,  ethical,  and  almost 
purely  Jewish  thought  shines  on  us  in  its  genuine 


8  PREFACE 

form  only  in  the  document  known  to  scholars  as 
Q  —  the  source  of  the  sayings  reported  by  Matthew 
and  Luke  but  not  found  in  the  other  gospels  —  these 
doctrines  appealed  so  strongly  to  the  mentality  of 
the  early  Gentile  Christians,  that  they  were  rapidly 
adopted  and  became  fixed  in  the  ritual  and  creed 
of  the  church. 

The  subsequent  history  of  the  eucharist  is  chief- 
ly the  record  of  attempts  to  rationalize  a  doctrine 
that,  after  the  first  three  or  four  centuries  of  the 
vulgar  era,  no  longer  seemed  natural.  In  transub- 
stantiation,  in  consubstantiation,  in  the  various  ex- 
planations of  the  modes  of  the  real  presence 
evolved  by  the  Reformers,  we  see  but  so  many  ef- 
forts on  the  part  of  reason  to  grasp  the  mystery  of 
the  words:  "This  is  my  body."  As,  in  the  contro- 
versies following  Luther's  revolt,  the  matter  re- 
ceived the  most  thorough  discussion  that  it  ever 
received,  the  period  of  the  Reformation  bulks  large 
in  the  present  work.  After  the  sixteenth  century, 
little  that  was  new  or  important  was  said  upon  the 
subject.  The  Zwinglian  theory  that  the  bread  and 
wine  were  mere  symbols  was  silently  adopted  by 
most  Protestants,  by  all,  indeed,  except  a  small 
band  who  consciously  clung  to  whatever  was  an- 
cient and  impressive  in  ritual  and  to  the  "credo  quia 
absurdum"  in  doctrine.  Both  among  Christians  and 
rationalists  the  matter  ceased  to  attract  attention. 

There  have,  indeed,  been  a  few  modern  his- 
tories of  the  eucharist  by  believers,  but  secular  his- 


PREFACE  9 

torians  have  been  content  to  let  the  subject  drop  as 
not  worth  study.  In  this  they  have  been  wrong; 
for,  as  Franz  Cumont  says  in  the  introduction  to 
his  Astrology  and  Religion  among  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  the  history  of  man's  errors  and  failures 
is  often  as  instructive  as  the  history  of  his  successes. 
The  present  study  will  be  accepted,  I  hope,  as  a 
purely  objective  history  in  the  field  of  comparative 
religion,  written  by  one  who  has  no  propaganda  to 
spread,  and  no  cause  to  serve  save  that  of  know- 
ledge for  its  own  sake. 

Though  the  manuscript  was  complete  by  the  end 
of  1915,  publication  was  postponed  for  various  rea- 
sons. After  keeping  the  manuscript  for  nearly  a 
year,  during  which  the  brochure  had  the  advantage 
of  being  read  and  occasionally  corrected  by  several 
learned  theologians  —  to  whom  I  now  tender  my 
thanks- — The  Society  of  Church  Flistory  returned 
it  with  the  statement  that  they  would  publish 
part  of  it,  but  the  whole  was  too  long  for  their 
biennial  volume.  As  I  preferred  to  have  it  all 
published  together,  I  sent  it  to  Dr.  Paul  Carus 
who,  with  kind  alacrity,  promised  to  bring  out  the 
whole  in  book  form  as  soon  as  peace  was  signed 
with  Germany.  The  first  two  sections  were  given 
to  the  public  in  the  Monist  of  April,  191 8,  but  the 
rush  of  business  due  to  the  war,  and  the  sad  inter- 
ruption caused  by  Dr.  Carus's  death,  have  post- 
poned the  publication  of  the  whole  until  the  pres- 
ent.    In  the  meantime,  I  have  continued  to  study 


lO 


PREFACE 


the  subject  and  have  revised  the  manuscript  in  the 
light  of  the  most  recent  research.  For  assistance 
in  reading  the  proof  I  am  indebted  to  my  v^ife. 

Preserved  Smith 
Cambridge 
August  27,  1 92 1 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Bibliography 13 

I.     Praeparatio  Evangelica      .       .       .  23 

II.     Paul  and  his  Symmystae      ...  43 

III.  Transubstantiation       .       .       .       .  78 

IV.  CONSUBSTANTIATION 95 

V.     Luther 99 

VI.     Carlstadt 122 

VII.     Zwingli  and  Oecolampadius      .       -137 

VIII.     Schwenckfeld 164 

IX.     BucER 167 

X.     Melanchthon 183 

XI.     Calvin         190 

XII.     The  British  Reformers  ....  202 

XIII.     The  Last  Phase 212 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

J.  Abbadie:  Chemical  change  in  the  Eucharist,  in  four  letters  show- 
ing the  relation  of  faith  to  sense.  Translated  by  J.  W.  Hamersly. 
London.     1867.  ,     . 

Acta  der  Disputation  zu  Flensburg,  die  sache  des  Hochwirdigen 
Sacraments  betreffend,  im  1529  Jar  des  Donnerstag  nach  Quasi- 
modogeniti    geschehen.     Wittenberg.      1529. 

H.  AcHELis:  Das  Christentum  in  den  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderten.  2  v. 

1912. 
Peter  d'Ailly:   Quaestiones  magistri    Petri    de   aylliaco   super   libros 

sententiarum.     Paris.     1500. 
P.  S.  Allen:  The  Age  of  Erasmus.     Oxford.     1914- 
P.  S.  Allen:  Opus  Epistolarum  Erasmi.    Oxford.     1904  ff-     3  vols. 
G.   Anrich:  Martin  Bucer.     Strassburg.     1914. 
Archiv  fiir  Reformationsgeschichte,  cited  as  A.  R.  G. 
Archiv  fiir  Religionswissenschaft,  cited  as  A.  R.  W. 
J.  M.  Ashley:  Eucharist  Sermons  by  great  preachers,  edited  by.    1873. 
The  Bacchae,  by  Euripides,  translated  by  G.  Murray.     1910. 
B.  W.  Bacon:  The  Fourth  Gospel  in  Research  and  Debate.     1910. 
Bancrafte:  The  Answer  that  the  Preachers  of  the  Gospel  at  Basile 
made  for  the  defense  of  the  true  administration  and  use  of  the 
holy  supper  of  our  Lord  agaynst  the  abomination  of  the  Popyshe 
Masse.     Translated   out   of  the   Latin   into   Englyshe   by   George 
Bancrafte.    London.     1548.     (Imperfect  copy  at  Union  Seminary). 
H.  Barge:  Aktenstucke  zur  Wittenberger  Bewegung,  Anfang  1522. 

1912. 
H.  Barge:  Andreas  Bodenstein  von  Karlstadt.     2  vols.     1905- 
W.    Barlowe:    a    Dialoge    describing   the    original    ground    of   these 
Lutheran   faccions   and   many  of   their   abuses,   Corapyled   by   syr 
William  Barlowe,  chanon,  late  byshop  of  Bathe.     1553. 
R.    Barnes:    Fiirnemlich    Artickel    der    Christlichen    kirchen     .     .     . 
Erstlich   in   Latein   durch   D.    Antonium    aus   Engelandt   zusamen 
gebracht,    newlich    mit    einer    vorred    Joan.      Pomerani     .     .     . 
verdeurscht.     1531. 
J.  W.  Baum:  Capito  und  Butzer.     Eberfeld.     i860. 
W.    Bauer:    Das    Leben    Jesu    im    Zeitaher    der    neutestamentlichen 
Apocryphen.     Tubingen.     1909. 


14  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Beacon:  Catechism,  edited   by  Parker  Society. 

H.  Bell:  Dr.  Martin  Luther's  Colloquia  Mensalia,  or  his  last  Divine 
Discourses    at    his    Table,    translated    by    Captain    Henry    Bell. 
London.      1652. 
G.  A.  van  den  Bergh  van  Eysinga:  Radical  Views  about  the  New 

Testament.     English  translation.     London.      1912. 
H.  F.  Bindseil:  Lutheri  Colloquia.     3  vols.     Lemgoviae  et  Detmoldiae. 
1863-6. 

Blaurer:  Briefwechsel  der  Bruder  A.  und  T.  Blaurer,  bearbeitet  von 
T.  Schiess.     Frieburg  i.  Br.     3   vols.     1908   flf. 

Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

W.  Bousset:  Kyrios  Christos.     1913. 

J.  Bradford:  Writings,  edited  by  the  Parker  Society.     1846. 

Briefmappe.  Reformationsgeschichtliche  Studien  und  Texte,  heraus- 
gegeben  von  J.  Greving.     Vol.  i.     1912. 

M.  Bruckner:  Der  Sterbende  und  auferstehende*  Gottheiland.     1908. 

G.  Buchwald:  Ungendruckte  Predigten  Martin  Luthers.     1905. 

Bullinger  and  Calvin  :  Two  Epystles,  one  of  Henry  Bullinger  .  .  . 
another  of  Johan  Caluyne  .  .  .  whether  it  be  lawful  for  a 
chrysten  man  to  communicate  or  be  partaker  of  the  masse  of  the 
papysts,  without  oflFending  God  and  hys  neighbour  or  not.  Lon- 
don.    1548. 

J.  Calvin,  see  Corpus  Reformatorum. 

J.  Calvin:  Institution  de  la  Religion  chrestienne,  ed.  A.  Lefranc. 
1911. 

J.  Calvin:  CEuvres  choisies,  publics  par  Its  pasteurs  de  Geneve. 
1909. 

J.  EsTLiN  Carpenter:  Phases  of  Early  Christianity.     1916. 

S.  J.  Case:  The  Evolution  of  Early  Christianity.     1914. 

Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  translated  by  J.  Donovan.  1829. 

C.  Clemen:  Primitive  Christianity  and  its  Non-Jewish  Sources.    1912. 

J.  Cochlaeus:  Articuli  CCCCC  Martini  Lutheri  ex  Sermonibus  ejus 
Sex  et  Triginta,  quibus  singulatim  responsum  est  a  Joanne 
Cochlaeo.     (Sine  loco).     1526. 

R.  Lee  Cole:  Love-Feasts.     1916. 

F.  C.  Conybeare:  "The  Eucharist,"  article  in  E.  B. 

F.  C.  Conybeare:  Myth,  Magic  and  Morals.     1909. 

Corpus  Reformatorum.  Vols.  1-28  contain  the  works  of  Melanchthon 
edited  by  Bretschneider  and  Bindseil,  Halle,  1834  ff;  vols.  29-87 
contain  the  works  of  Calvin  edited  by  Cunitz,  Baum  and  Reuss, 
Brunswick,  1896  ff ;  vols.  88  ff  contain  Zwingli's  works,  edited  by 
Egli,  Finsler  and  W.  Kohler,  Berlin.     1905  ff. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  15 

T.  Cranmer:  Works  and  Remains,  edited  by  Parker  Society.     1842. 
Crosner:    Ein    Sermon    vom    Hochwirdigen    heiligen    Sacrament    des 

leibs  und   bluts  Christi,  durch  Alexium  Crosner  von  Colditz   auff 

dem  Schlos  zu  Dresden  inn  Meissen  gepredigt.    Wittenberg.  1531. 
F.  Cumont:  The  Mysteries  of  Mithra,  English  translation,     1903-. 
F.  DiBELius:  Das  Abendmahl.     191 1. 
A.  Dietrich:  Eine  Mithrasliturgie.2    1910. 
E.  Doumergue:  Jean  Calvin.     5  vols.     1899-1917. 
P.  Drews:  Disputationen  Dr.  Martin  Luthers.     1895. 
Du  Cange:  Glossarium  mediae  et  infimae  Latinitatis,   editio   nova   a 

L.  Favre.     10  vols.     Niort.     1883   ff- 
R.  W.  Emerson:  The  Lord's  Supper.     1832. 
E.  EiMERTON:  Erasmus.     1900. 
Hieron.    Emser:   Auff    Luthers    grewel    wider    die   heiligen    Stillmesz 

Antwort.     1525. 
Encyclopaedia  Brittanica,ii   1910-11,  cited  as  E.  B. 
Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  edited  by  J.  Hastings,  1908  ff, 

cited  as  E.  R.  E. 
Enders:  Luther's  Brief wechse!  bearbeitet  von  E.  L.  Enders  &  al.     17 

vols.    1884  ff. 
Erasmi  Epistolae,  London,  1642. 
D.  Erasmi  Opera  omnia,  ed.  Clericus.    Lugduni  Batavorum.     1703  ff. 

10  vols. 
Erlangen:  Luthers  sammtliche  Werke,  herausgegeben  von  Irmischer, 

Enders,    Elsperger,   Schmid    und    Schmidt.      100   vols.     Erlangen. 

1823  ff. 
Expositor. 

L.  R.  Farnell:  Cults  of  the  Greek  States.     Oxford.     1905.     5  vols. 
J.  A.  Faulkner:  "Dies  ist  mein  Leib."  Revieiu  and  Expositor,  Louis- 
ville, Ky.,  July,  1915. 
J.  A.  Faulkner:  "Luther   and  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  critical  years 

1517-22."    Lutheran  Quarterly,  April,  1915. 
J.    A.    Faulkner:    "Melanchthon    and    the   Lord's    Supper."     Lutheran 

Quarterly,  1917. 
J.  A.  Faulkner:  "Luther  and  the  Real  Presence,"  American  Journal 

of.  Theology,  April,   1917. 
J.   Fisher:   De   Veritate   corporis    et   sanguinis   Christi   in   eucharistia 

per    reverendum    in    Christo    patrem    D.    Johannem    Roffensem 

Episcopum  adversus  Johannem  Oecolampadium.     Coloniae.     1527. 
L.   A.   Fisher:   The   Mystic   Vision   of   the   Grail  Legend    and   in  the 

Divine  Comedy.     1917. 
A.  Fortescue:  The  Mass.     1914. 


1 6  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

p.  Foucart:  Les  Mysteres  d'Eleusis.     1914. 

J.  G.  Frazer:  The  Golden  Bough.3     Part  I  The  Magic  Art,  2  vols. 

1911.  Part  II    Taboo.     2  vols.     1911.     Part  III    The  Dying  God. 

1912.  Part  IV  Adonis  Attis  Osiris.  1914.  Part  V  Spirits  of 
the  Corn  and  Wild.  2  vols.  1912.  Part  VI  The  Scapegoat. 
1914.     Part  VII    Balder  the  Beautiful.    2  vols.     1913. 

J.  G.  Frazer:  Totemism  and  Exogamy:  4  vols.     1910. 

W.  H.  Freestone:  The  Sacrament  Reserved.  A  Survey  of  the  Prac- 
tice of  Reserving  the  Eucharist  .  .  .  during  the  first  twelve 
centuries.     1917. 

W.  H.  Frere:  Visitation  articles  and  injunctions  of  the  period  of  the 
Reformation.     Alcuin   Club   Collections.   XV.     3   vols.     1912. 

P.  Gardner:  The  Ephesian  Gospel.     19 15. 

P.  Gardner:  Exploratio  Evangei.ica.^    1907. 

P.  Gardner:  The  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul.     1911. 

M.  R.  Gilchrist:  The  Letters  of  John  Calvin,  translated.  4  vols. 
1858. 

K.  G.  GoETz:  Das  Abendmahl  eine  Diatheke  Jesu  oder  sein  letztes 
Gleichnis?.     1920. 

M.  Goguel:  L'Eucharistie  des  origines  a  Justin  Martyr.     1910. 

F.   Graebke:  Die  Konstruktion   der   Abendmahlslehre  Luthers.     1908. 

Archbishop  Grindal:  Remains,  ed.  Parker  Society. 

H.  Grisar:  Luther.     3  vols.     Frieburg  i.  Br.  1911-2. 

W.  M.  Groton:  The  Christian  Eucharist  and  the  Pagan  Cults.     1914. 

F.  Gundlach:  "Nachtrage  zum  Briefwechsel  des  Landgrafen  Philipp 

mit   Luther   und    Melanchthon."      In   Festschrift   zum    Geddchtnis 

Philipps  des  Grossmiitigen.    Kassel.     1904. 
M.  Haile:  An  Elizabethan  Cardinal,  W.  Allen.     1914. 
L.    G.    Hamilton  :    "Sources    of    the    Symbolical    Lay    Communion." 

Romanic  Review.     191 3.     iv.  221   flF. 
A.  Harnack:  "Brot  und  Wasser."    T.  &  U.  VII.  ii.     1891. 
A.  Harnack:  A  History  of  Dogma,  English  translation  by  Buchanan. 

Boston.    7  vols,     1897. 
A.  Harnack:  Lehrbuch  der  Dogmengeschichte.*     3  vols.     1909  f. 
J.  F.  Harrison:  Prolegomena  to  the  Study  of  all  Greek  Religion.  1903. 
J.  F.  Harrison:  Themis.    1912. 
Harvard  Theological  Review,  cited  at  H.  T.  R. 
A.  Hausrath:  Luthers  Leben.    2  vols.    1904. 
J.  Haussleiter:  Die  geschichtlichen  Griinde  der   letzten   Unterredung 

Luthers  und  Melanchthons  im  Abendmahlstreit,  1546.     1899. 
W.  Heitmuller:  "Das  Abendmahl  im  Neuen  Testament,"  article  in 

R.  G.  G. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  17 

Herminjard:  Correspondance  des  Reformateurs  des  pays  de  la  langue 

frangaise.2     9  vols.     1878  ff. 
HiBBERT  Journal. 
Hoen:   De   Avondmaalsbrief   van   Cornells   Hoen    1525.      Uitgegeven 

door  A.  Eekhof.     1917. 
R.  Hutchinson:  Works,  edited  by  the  Parker  Society,  1846  ff, 
S.  M.  Jackson:  Huldreich  Zwingli.     1900. 

E.  A.  James:  Primitive  Ritual  and  Belief:  An  Anthropological  Essay. 

1917. 
Janssen-Pastor:  Geschichte  des  deutschen   Volkes  seit  dem   Ausgang 

des  Mittelalters  von  J.  Janssen.    Vols.  1  and  3  in  the  20th  edition 

by  L.  Pastor,  1913  ff.     Volumes  3-8  in  the  i6th  ed.  by  L.  Pastor, 

1899  ff. 
J.  Jewel:  Works,  edited  by  the  Parker  Society,  1846  ff. 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies,  cited  as  J.  T.  S. 

F.  X.  Kattum  :  Die  Eucharistielehre  des  heiligen  Bonaventura.    1920. 
J.  F.  Keating:  The  Agape  and  the  Eucharist.    1901. 

H.  A.  A.  Kennedy:  St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery-Religions.     1913. 

J.  Kessler:  Sabbata.     1902. 

B.   J.   Kidd:   Documents   illustrative   of   the   Continental    Reformation. 

1911. 
K.  Kirscher:  Die  sakrale  Bedeutung  des  Weines  im  Altertum.     1910. 
W.  Kohler:  "Zum  Abendmahlsstreite  zwischen  Luther  und  Zwingli," 

Lutherstudien  zur  4.  Jahrundertfeier  der  Reformation,   191 7.   pp. 

114  ff. 
T.  Kolde:  Analecta  Lutherana.     1883. 
J.   Kostlin:  The   Theology  of   Luther,   English  translation   by   C.   F. 

Hay.     2  vols.     Philadelphia.     1897. 
Kostlin-Kawerau:  M.  Luther,  von  J.  Kostlin,  funfte  Auflage  bear- 

beitet  von  G.  Kawerau.     2  vols.     1903. 

E.  Kroker:  Luthers  Tischreden  in  der  Mathesischen  Sammlung.    1903. 
Kirsopp  Lake:  The  Apostolic  Fathers.    2  vols.    1913. 

Kirsopp  Lake:  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.     191  i. 

J.  C.  Lambert:  The  Sacraments  in  the  New  Testament.     1903. 

F.  Lauchert:   Die  italienischen   literarischen   Gegner  Luthers.      1912. 
T.  M.  Lindsay:  A  History  of  the  Reformation.    2  vols.     1906-7. 

F.    W.    Loetscher:    Schwenckfeld's    Participation    in    the    Eucharistic 

Controversy  of  the  Sixteenth  Century.     Philadelphia.     1906. 
A.  Loisy:  L'Evangile  selon  Marc.     1912. 

Loofs:  Leitfaden  zum  Studium  der  Dogmengeschichte.*     1906. 
Luther's  Correspondence  and  other  contemporary  Letters,  translated 


1 8  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

and  edited  by  Preserved  Smith.    Vol.  i.  1913;  Vol.  2.  in  collabora- 
tion with  C.  M.  Jacobs,  1918. 
Luthers  Werke,  see  Erlangen   and  Weimar. 
M.  Luther:  The  Works  of,  English  translation  by  Lambert,  Schindel, 

Steinhauser,    Steinle    and    C.   M.   Jacobs.     Philadelphia.      2    vols. 

1914  ff. 
Melanchthon,  see  Corpus  Reformatorum. 

Melanchthon:  Supplementa  Melanchthoniana,  1910  ff,  2  vols. 
J.    F.    Meyer:   De    Hostiis    et    Calicibus    venenatis.      Gryphiswaldiae. 

1703. 
A.  C.  McGiffert:  Martin  Luther.     1911. 
A.  C.  McGiffert:  Protestant  Thought  before  Kant.     191 1. 
The  Missal,  compiled  from  the  Missale  Romanum,  with  the  approba- 
tion of  the  Ecclesiastical  Authorities.     1912. 
C.  Mirbt:  Quellen  zur  Geschichte  des  Papsttums  und   des  romischen 

Katholizismus.3     191 1. 
Moller-Kawerau:  I  ehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte,^  von  W.  Moller, 

Band   III   Die   Reformation,   bearbeitet  von   G.   Kawerau.     1907. 
N.  Muller:  Die  Wittenberger  Bewegung  1521-2,  articles  in  A.  R.  G. 

1909-10. 
G.  Murray:  Four  Stages  of  Greek  Religion.     1912. 
L.  O'Donovan:  Assertio  Septem  Sacramentorum  by  Henry  VIIL     1908. 
Oecolampadius:   Billiche   Antwort   J.    Ecolampadij    auf    D,    Martin 

Luthers  Bericht  des  sacraments  halb.     1526. 
J.  Oecolampadii  de  genuina  Verborum  Domini,  Hoc  est  corpus  meum, 

expositione  liber.     1525. 
J.    Oecolampadius:    Sermo   de    sacramento    eucharistiae.    [Colophon] 

Augsburg,  June  20,  1521. 
Oecjlampadii  et  Zwinglii  epistolarum  libri  quattuor.    Basle.     1536. 
Original  Letters  relating  to  the  English  Reformation,  edited  by  the 

Parker  Society.     1846.     3  vols. 
F.   M.   Padelford:   The   Political    and    Ecclesiastical   Allegory   of   the 

First  Book  of  the  Fairy  Queen.     191 1. 
L.   Pastor:  A   History  of  the   Popes,   English  translation  edited   by 

Antrobus  and  Kerr.     12  vols,  to  1549.     1839  ff- 
L.  von  Pastor:  Geschichte  der  Papste  seit  dem  Ausgang  des  Mittel- 

alters.     Band   VI-VIH    (1549-1572),   1913-1921. 
R.  J.  Peebles:  The  Legend  of  Longinus.     (Bryn  Mawr  Dissertation). 

1911. 
O.  Pfleiderer:  Primitive  Christianity.     4  vols.     1906  ff. 
J.    von    Pfluk-Harttung:    Weltgeshichte.      Das    religiose    Zeitalter, 

1500-1650.     1907. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  19 

B.  Pick:  Apocryphal  Acts.    1909. 

B.  Pick:  Paralipomena.    1908. 

J.  Prinsen:  Collectanea  van  Gerardus  Geldenhauer.  Amsterdam. 
1901. 

Edward  Bouverie  Pusey:  The  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Euchar- 
ist, 1853. 

E.  B.  Pusey:  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence.     1855. 

E.  B.  Pusey:  The  Real  Presence     .     .     .     The  Doctrine  of  the  Church 

of  England.     1857. 
G.    Rauschen:    Eucharistie    und    Bussakrament    in    den    ersten    sechs 

Jahrunderten  der  Kirche.^     1910. 
Realencyclopadie  fiir  protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche.     24  vols. 

1896-1913.  "■ 

S.  Reinach:  Cultes,  Mythes,  et  Religions,  4  vols.     1905  ff. 
S.  Reinach:  Orpheus.     English  translation.     1912. 
R.  Reitzenstein:  Die  hellenistischen  Mysterien  religionen  und  Paulus 

1910.     2d  ed.     1920. 
Religion   in   Geschichte  und    Gegenwart.     5   vols.      1909   ff     Cited   as 

R.  G.  G. 

F.  S.  Renz:  Die  Geschichte  des  Messopfer-Begriffs.     2  vols.     1901   f. 

E.  Reuterskiold:    Die   Entstehung   der    Speisesakramente.      Aus    dem 

Schwedischen   iibersetzt  von   H.   Sperber.     1912. 
J.  Reville:  Les  engines  de  I'eucharistie ;   articles  in  R.  H.  R.,  1907  f. 
Revuei  de  theologie  et  de^  questions  religieuses,  cited   as  R.   T.  Q.  R. 
Revue  d'histoire  des  religions,  cited   as  R.  H.  R. 
J.   W.   Richard:   the    Confessional    History   of   the   Lutheran    Church. 

1909. 
J.  W.  Richard:  Philip  Melanchthon.     1898. 
J.  Ridley:  Works,  ed.  by  the  Parker  Society,   1846  ff. 
A.  Robertson  and  A.  Plummer:  Commentary  on  I -Corinthians.     1911, 
"Sacraments,"    article   by   various    authors    in   E.   R.    E.,   vol    10,    pp. 

898   ff,  1919. 
Schaff:  History  of  the  Christian   Church.     7  vols.     1877  ff. 
P.  Schaff:  The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  3  vols.     1877. 
O.   Scheel:   "Abendmahl;   Dogmengeschichtlich,"   article  in   R.    G.   G. 

F.  W.  Schirrmacher:  Briefe  und  Akten  zur  Geschichte  des  Religions- 

gespraches   zu   Marburg   1529   und   des   Reichtages   zu    Augsburg 

1530.     1876. 
H.    von    Schubert:    Bekenntnisbildung    und    Religionspolitik    1529-30. 

1910. 
ScHULER  und  Schulthess:  Zwinglii  Opera.     8  vols.     1828-42. 


20  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

L.  Schwabe:  Studien  zur  Geschichte  des  zweiten  Abendmahlstreits. 
1887. 

A.  Schweitzer:  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus.     1910. 

A.  Schweitzer:  Geschichte  der  paulinischen  Forschung.     1911. 

Schwenckfeld:  Corpus  Schwenckfeldianorum,  ed  Hartranft,  4  vols. 
1909  ff. 

J.  K.  Seidemann:  Lauterbachs  Tagebuch  auf  das  Jahr   1538.     1872. 

J.  T.  Shotwell:  A  Study  of  the  History  of  the  Eucharist     1905. 

Preserved  Smith:  The  Life  and  Letters  of  Martin  Luther.^     1914. 

Preserved  Smith:  The  Age  of  the  Reformation,     1920. 

Preserved  Smith:  "A  new  Light  on  the  Relations  of  Peter  and 
Paul."  H'tbbert  Journal,  July  1913.  (Translated  as  "Une  nou- 
velle  Hypothese  sur  les  relations  de  St.  Pierre  et  de  St.  Paul,"  by 
S.  Reinach,  and  published  in  the  Bibliothique  de  Propagande, 
xi  annee,  Oct,  15,  1913.) 

Preserved  Smith:  "The  Disciples  of  John  and  the  Odes  of  Solomon," 
Monist,   April,   1915. 

Preserved  Smith  and  H.  P.  Gallinger:  Conversations  with  Luther; 
Selections  from  the  Table  Talk  translated.     1915. 

Preserved  Smith:  "A  Decade  of  Luther  Research,"  Harvard  Theo- 
logical Review,  April,  1921. 

R.  Smith:  The  Assertion  and  Defense  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar. 
Compyled   and  made  by  mayster  Richard  Smith.     1546. 

H.  von  Soden:  Griechisches  Neues  Testament,     Handausgabe.     1913. 

J.  H.  Srawley:  "The  Eucharist:  To  the  Reformation,"  article  in  E.R.E, 

R.  Stahelin:  Briefe  aus  der  Reformationszeit.     1887. 

A.  M,  Stoddart:  Paracelsus,     1911. 

D.  Stone:  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.    2  vols.  1909, 

D.  Stone:  The  Reserved  Sacrament,     1917. 

Tabular  View  of  the  Variations  in  the  Communion  and  Baptismal 
Offices  of  the  Church  of  England  1549-62.     1842. 

J.  Taylor:  The  Real  Presence,  (In  Works  ed.  R.  Heber,  1839,  vol. 
9  and   10). 

J.  Taylor:  The  Worthy  Communicant  {ibid.,  vol.  15). 

Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  cited  as  T.  &  U. 

Texts  and  Studies,  cited  as  T,  &  S. 

Theologische  Studien  und  Kritiken,  cited  as  T.  S.  K. 

R.  R.  Tollington:  Clement  of  Alexandria.     1914. 

E.  Troeltsch:  Protestantism   and   Progress.     1912. 
W.  Tyndale:  Treatises,  ed,  Parker  Society,  1846  ff. 

Vadianische  Briefsammlung,  ed.  Arbenz  und  Wartmann,  7  vols., 
1890  flF. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  21 

M.  Valentine:  Christian  Theology.     2  vols.     1906. 

Venite   Adoremus  Bulletin,   pub.   semi-annually  by  the    Dominican 

nuns  of  the   Monastery   of  the   Holy  Name,   2824   Melrose  Ave., 

Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
O.  Vogt:  Bugenhagens  Briefwechsel.     1888. 
WiLLiSTON  Walker:  John  Calvin.     1906. 
P.  Wappler:  Die  Stellung  Kursachsens  und  des  Landgrafen  Philipp 

von    Hessen    zur   Tauferbewegung.     1910. 
L.  Waterman:  The  Primitive  Tradition  of  the  Eucharistic  Body  and 

Blood.     1919. 
H.  Watt:  "Eucharist  in  Reformation  and  Post-Reformation  Times," 

article  in  E.  R.  E. 
J.  Weiss:  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments  neu  iibersetzt.     2  vols. 

1906  f. 
Weimar:  Luthers  Werke,  kritische  Gesamtausgabe.    Weimar,  1883  ff. 

60  vols. 
B.  J.  Westcott  and  F.  J.  A.  Hort:  The  New  Testament  in  the  Orig- 
inal Greek.     Small  ed.  1895. 
W.  L.  M.  de  Wette:  Luthers  Briefe,  6  vols.   1828-56    (6th  vol.  by 

Seidemann). 
G.  P.  Wetter:  Altchristliche  Liturgien.     Das  Christliche  Mysterium. 

Studie   zur   Geschichte   des   Abendmahls.     1921. 
J.  Wyclif:  De  eucharistia  tractatus  maior,  ed.  J.  Loserth.     1892. 
Zeitschrift  fiir  neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  cited  as  Z.  N.  T,  IV. 
Zeitschrift  fiir  Kirchengeschichte,  cited  as  Z.  K.  G. 
F.  Zimmermann:  Die  Abendmesse  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenwart.  1914. 
P.  Zorn:  Historia  Eucharistiae  Infantium.     1736. 
Zurich  Letters,  ed.  Parker  Society,  1846  ff. 

ZwiNGLi,  see  Corpus  Reformatorum  and  Schuler  und  Schulthess. 
H.  ZwiNGLi's  Latin  Works  and  Correspondence,  ed.  S.  M.  Jackson, 

vol.  I,  1912. 


I.     PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA 

Those  who  have  attended  the  celebration  of  a  mass 
have  witnessed  the  most  ancient  survival  from  a  hoary 
antiquity.  There,  in  the  often  beautiful  church,  in 
gorgeous  vestments,  with  incense  and  chanted  liturgy, 
the  priest  sacrifices  a  God  to  himself  and  distributes  his 
flesh  to  be  eaten  by  his  worshippers.  The  Divine  Son 
is  offered  to  the  Father  as  "a  pure  victim,  a  spotless 
victim,  a  holy  victim,"  '  and  his  holy  body  and  blood 
become  the  food  of  the  faithful.  The  teaching  of  the 
church  is  explicit  on  this  point.  The  body  eaten  is  the 
same  as  that  once  born  of  a  virgin  and  now  seated  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father;  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass 
is  one  and  the  same  as  that  of  the  cross,  and  is  so 
grateful  and  acceptable  to  God  that  it  is  a  suitable 
return  for  all  his  benefits,  will  expiate  sin,  and  turn 
the  wrath  of  the  offended  Deity  "from  the  severity  of  a 
just  vengeance  to  the  exercise  of  benignant  clemency."  ^ 

All  this  goes  back  to  the  time  when  man  was  just 
emerging  from  the  animal;  it  is  the  most  striking  of  the 
many  instances  of  the  conservatism  of  religion.  The 
further  back  we  go  historically  the  more  religious  do 
we  find  our  ancestors;  the  story  of  progress  has  been 
one  of  constant  secularization.  But  there  was  a  pre- 
historic time  when  there  was  nothing  that  we  would 
recognize  as  religion  at  all.     Behind  the  savage  culture 

1  The  Missal:  Canon  of  the  Mass. 

2  Catechism  ofi  the  Council  of  Trent,  transl.  by  J.  Donovan,  1829, 
pp.  156  ff. 


y 


24  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

that  we  know,  when  religion  rules  the  tribes  with  a  rod 
of  iron,  there  must  have  been  a  period  when  the  grand- 
sons of  the  ape  were  accumulating  their  theological 
ideas.  Their  first  concept  was  not,  apparently,  that  of 
personal  gods,  but  that  of  a  vast  mystery;  it  was  the 
weird  or  uncanny  quality  of  certain  things  they  did  not 
understand.  Along  with  this  was  the  overmastering 
power  of  tribal  custom.  They  had  the  conservative 
instinct  to  the  highest  degree ;  as  children  and  savages 
and  certain  neurotics  ^  to-day,  they  felt  an  imperative 
need,  the  reason  of  which  they  could  not  explain,  that 
things  should  be  done  in  the  ways  to  which  they  were 
accustomed.  The  real  reasons,  of  course,  lay  deep 
in  the  laws  of  habit  and  imitation  but,  because  they 
could  not  understand  this,  they  gave  their  acts  a  myster- 
ious sanction,  the  taboo.  It  was  in  this,  and  the  related 
idea  of  "mana,"  both  of  them  founded  in  the  sacred- 
ness,  i.e.,  mysteriousness,  weirdness,  of  certain  objects 
and  acts,  that  the  germs  of  all  religions  lay.  In  the 
earliest  stages  the  ape-men  were  unable  to  conceive  of 
anything  very  personal  and  definite  as  god.  Not  only 
was  the  conception  of  a  Being  "without  body,  parts  or 
passions"  impossible  to  them,  but  even  an  anthropo- 
morphic god  was  too  abstract.  Nor  was  this  period  so 
remote  as  we  sometimes  think.  Just  as  in  Latin  the 
word  sacer^  meaning  both  "sacred"  and  "accursed," 
retains  the  old  connotation  of  "taboo,"  so  in  Greek 
^€os  was  used  with  a  far  wider  significance  than  we 
should  use  the  word  "god."  -  The  fact  of  success  was 
a  "god"  and  more  than  a  "god";  to  recognize  a  friend 
after  long  absence  is  a  "god";  wine  is  a  "god"  whose 

3  S.     Freud,     Ziuangshandlungen     und     Religionsiibungen.    Kleine 
Schriften  zur  N euros enlehre.     2d  ed.,  1909,  122  ff. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  25 

body  was  poured  out  in  libation  to  the  gods/  Nor  was 
this  mere  poetry  or  philosophy;  it  was,  to  the  speakers, 
literal  prose. 

This  earliest  stage  of  theology  was  totemism,  at 
one  time  probably  universal.  The  totem  was  a  special- 
ly sacred  thing  connected,  by  some  fancied  resemblance, 
with  the  tribe  —  at  that  period  Church  and  State  in 
one.  It  was  a  sort  of  dreadful  mascot;  a  thing,  usually 
an  animal,  that  was  felt  to  be  akin  to  the  tribe  and 
that  could  bring  both  bad  luck  and  good  according  to 
the  treatment  it  received.  Ordinarily  it  was  treated 
with  reverence,  awe  and  fear;  it  could  not  be  killed  or 
annoyed.  But  at  times  when  things  were  going  badly, 
or  there  was  urgent  need  of  stimulating  the  crops  on 
which  the  existence  of  the  people  depended,  or  the 
bravery  of  the  men  or  the  fecundity  of  the  women 
which  were  no  less  essential,  some  more  drastic  form 
of  government  regulation  of  totems  was  felt  to  be 
desirable.  How  could  the  tribe  absorb  the  good  quali- 
ties of  the  sacred  thing;  its  "mana,"  as  some  of  us,  or 
"grace,"  as  others  would  say? 

Compared  with  the  first  mystics  who  brooded  over 
the  problem  of  union  with  the  divine,  Caliban  was  a 
gentleman  and  a  scholar,  the  exquisite  flower  of  a  long 
refinement  by  civilization.  Practically  the  whole  con- 
tent of  their  experience,  as  far  as  it  gave  them  any 
suggestions  of  union,  was  food  and  sex.  The  "god" 
must  be  either  eaten,  or  united  with  his  worshipers  in 
sexual  intercourse.^     Both  ideas  have  colored  the  lan- 

4  G.  Murray,  Four  Stages  of  Greek  Religion,  1912,  p.  26. 

5  See  A.  Dietrich.  Eine  Mithrasliturgie,  1910,  pages  121  and  the 
following.  On  sexual  intercourse  with  deity  in  classical  antiquity,  see, 
for  instance,  Alcestis,  839 ;  Josephus,  Antiquities,  Chapter  XVIII,  3,  4- 
The  analogy  of  sex  in  the  union  with  God,  witnessed  by  a  thousand 


26  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

guage  and  thought  of  all  religions,  including  Christi- 
anity. 

The  eating  of  the  sacred  animal,  or,  later,  of  the 
god  in  the  form  of  an  animal,  is  the  one  with  which 
we  are  at  present  concerned.  The  classic  example  of 
it  is  that  found  by  Robertson  Smith  in  the  works  of 
St.  Nilus,  a  hermit  who  lived  on  Sinai  in  the  fourth 
century  of  our  era.*^  He  tells  how  the  Arabs  would 
sacrifice  boys  to  the  Morning  Star,  but,  when  boys 
failed,  would  take  a  white  camel,  and  after  wounding 
it  mortally,  would  suck  its  blood  and  eat  its  raw  and 
still  living  flesh.  Robertson  Smith  thought  of  the  camel 
as  a  tribal  god;  but  he  was  partly  wrong;  it  was  really 
only  the  raw  material  from  which  gods  are  madeu^ 
The  animal  was  devoured  to  get  its  "mana,"  its 
strength,  swiftness  and  endurance,  and  doubtless  other 
more  subtle  qualities.  For  the  savage  thought  of  all 
the  original  character  passing  over  with  the  flesh  and 
blood.  If  bread  could  strengthen  man  and  wine  make 
glad  his  heart,^  surely  the  brave,  strong,  sacred  body 
of  an  animal  could  impart  its  own  excellence.'' 

The  eating  of  an  animal  or  in  some  cases  a  human 
being  in  the  same  sacramental  way,  has  been  found  also 

"brides  of  Christ''  (cf.  Mark  ii.  19;  Eph.  i.  6 ;  v.  32)  is  carried  out  by 
Staupitz  (T.  Kolde,  Die  Augustiner-Kongregation,  1879,  p.  291)  and 
Luther  {Vorlesung  iiber  den  Romerbrief,  Scfiolien,  206).  On  homo- 
sexual ideas  in  mysticism,  cf.  Pfarrer  O.  Pfister,  L.  v.  Zinzendorf 
(Schriften  zur  angewandten  Seelenkunde,  VIII,  1910).  E.  Bethe, 
"Die  dorische  Knabenliebe,"  Rheinisches  Museum,  LXII,  3,  pp.  438  ff, 
1897. 

6  J.  E.  Harrison,  Prolegomena  to  the  Study  of  Greek  Religion,  1903, 
486  f. 

^  Murray,  35  f. 

8  Psalm  civ.  15.  These  words  were  quoted  by  Luther  as  applying 
to  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  eucharist. 

9  J.  G.  Frazer,  The  Golden  Bough,  3d  ed..  Spirits,  1912,  II,  138. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  27 

in  Australia,'"  in  Nigeria,  and  among  North  American 
Indians." 

But  the  totem  was  not  the  only  divine  being  eaten. 
In  the  primitive  sacrament  of  the  first-fruits,  the  spirit 
of  the  corn  was  thus  absorbed  by  its  votaries.  Thus 
in  Wendland,  Sweden,  to  the  present  day,  "the  farmer's 
wife  uses  the  grain  of  the  last  sheaf  to  bake  a  loaf  in 
the  shape  of  a  little  girl;  this  loaf  is  divided  among  the 
whole  household  and  eaten  by  them.  Here  the  loaf 
represents  the  corn-spirit  conceived  as  a  maiden."  "The 
new  corn  is  itself  eaten  sacramentally,  that  is,  as  the 
body  of  the  corn-spirit.'"^  A  similar  custom  is  found 
in  Lithuania. ^^ 

"In  one  part  of  Yorkshire  it  is  still  customary  for 
the  clergyman  to  cut  the  corn;  and  my  informant," 
says  Sir  J.  G.  Frazer,  "believes  that  the  corn  so  cut  is 
used  to  make  the  communion  bread.  If  the  latter  part 
of  the  custom  is  correctly  reported  (and  analogy  is  all 
in  its  favor)  it  shows  how  the  Christian  communion 
has  absorbed  within  itself  a  sacrament  which  is  doubt- 
less far  older  than  Christianity."^* 

Among  the  heathen  Cheremiss  on  the  Volga,  when 
the  first  bread  from  the  new  crop  of  wheat  is  to  be 
eaten,  the  villagers  assemble  in  the  house  of  the  oldest 
inhabitant,  open  the  eastward  door  and  pray  toward  it. 
The  sorcerer  or  priest  then  gives  each  a  mug  of  beer 
to  drain;  next  he  cuts  and  hands  to  every  person  a 
morsel  of  bread.     "The  whole  ceremony,"  says  the 

10  Frazer,  Totemism  and  Exogamy,  1910,  I,  izo;  II,  590;  IV,  23  ff. 
"Frazer,  Spirits,  I,  iSfiF. 
12 /H^.,   II,  48. 
13 /^iV.,  49. 
^^Ibid.,  51. 


28  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

writer  who  has  described  it,  "looks  almost  like  a  cari- 
cature of  the  eucharist."  ^^  In  fact  it  is  its  crude  proto- 
type. 

The  Incas  of  Peru  formerly  ate  bread  and  drank 
liquor  in  a  manner  compared  by  the  Spaniard  to  the 
eucharist.^® 

The  Aino  of  Japan  also  regard  their  cereal  offering 
as  an  eaten  god,"  and  the  East  Indians,  Buru,  call  their 
sacramental  meal  "eating  the  soul  of  the  rice.'"^  "In 
all  such  cases,"  observes  Frazer,  "we  may  not  improp- 
erly describe  the  eating  of  the  new  fruit  as  a  sacrament 
or  communion  with  a  deity,  or  at  all  events  with  a 
powerful  spirit."  In  many  cases  the  rite  was  preceded 
by  the  administration  of  a  purgative  or  emetic,  the  idea 
being  to  preserve  the  sacred  food  from  contact  with 
profane  nourishment.  Thus  the  Catholics  take  the 
eucharist  fasting. ^^ 

In  some  cases  the  sacrament  of  the  first-fruits  was 
combined  with  a  sacrifice  or  offering  of  them  to  the 
gods  or  spirits,  and  at  times  the  latter  element  of  the 
rite  throws  the  earlier  into  the  shade. ^°  Here,  too, 
the  analogy  with  the  mass  Is  striking,  as  in  the  con- 
nection made  by  Paul  between  the  feast  and  the  unleav- 
ened bread,  "Christ  our  passover  sacrificed  for  us," 
and  Christ  the  "first-fruits  of  them  that  slept."" 

The  custom  of  eating  a  god  sacramentally  was  prac- 
ticed by  the  Aztecs  before  the  discovery  of  Mexico. 
Twice  a  year.  In  May  and  December,  an  image  of  the 
great  god  Vltzlllputzli  was  made  of  dough  and  then 

15  Frazer,  Spirits,  I,  51. 

16  Prescott,  Conquest  of  Peru,  Chap.  III. 

17  Frazer,  Spirits,  II,  52. 
^^Ibid.,  54. 

^^Ibid.,  83. 
^^Ibid.,  86. 
21 1  Cor.  V.  7  f ;  XV.  20. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  29 

broken  In  pieces  and  solemnly  consumed.  Acosta  says 
that  the  Aztec  virgins  made  the  paste  of  beets  and  • 
maize,  which  they  called  the  flesh  and  bones  of  Vltzlll- 
putzll,  and  adored  as  such.  Then,  after  a  holocaust  of 
victims,  the  priests  distributed  the  dough  after  the  man- 
ner of  communion.  The  people  said  that  they  ate  the 
flesh  and  bones  of  God.  A  similar  mystic  communion 
was  held  by  the  Brahmans  In  India,  upon  which  Frazer 
remarks:  "On  the  whole  It  would  seem  that  neither  the 
ancient  Hindoos  nor  the  ancient  Mexicans  had  much 
to  learn  from  the  most  refined  mysteries  of  Catholic 
theology."" 

At  the  festival  of  the  winter  solstice  the  Aztecs  first 
killed  their  god  Hultzllopochtli  In  efiigy  and  then  ate 
him.  They  made  their  Idol  in  the  form  of  a  man, 
from  various  seeds,  with  bones  of  acacia  wood.  A 
priest,  who  took  the  name  and  part  of  god  Quetzal- 
coatl  pierced  the  Image  through  and  through,. which 
was  called  killing  it.  Then  they  cut  out  the  heart, 
which  was  given  to  the  king,  and  divided  the  rest 
among  the  people.  The  name  of  the  festival  was  "god 
is  eaten.'"^  As  we  shall  see  later  on,  at  one  time  the 
Christian  host  was  baked  in  the  form  of  a  man  and 
stabbed  by  the  priest. 

When  the  Mexicans  craved  a  closer  union  with  the 
living  god,  they  endeavored  to  attain  it  by  cannibalism ; 
making  a  man  impersonate  their  deity  and  then  devour- 
ing him.^*  A  curious  survival  of  communion  with  a 
god  by  eating  his  Image  is  found  among  the  Huichol 
Indians  of  Mexico,  who  have  an  Idol  carved  from  lava, 
bits  of  which  they  scrape  off  with  their  nails  and  eat.'' 

22  Frazer,  Spirits,  II,  89. 

23  Ibid.,  90. 
^*Ibid.,  92. 

2^  Spirits,  II,  93- 


30  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

The  Hindoos  furnish  two  further  customs  which  are 
also  found  in  Christianity.  The  Malas  eat  a  goddess 
in  effigy  at  the  time  of  their  marriage,^*'  just  as  Catho- 
lics commune  before  wedding.^"  The  Veddas  of  Cey- 
lon make  an  offering  to  the  spirits  of  the  dead,  which 
they  eat  sacramentally,  believing  that  it  will  give  them 
health  and  good  luck.  They  even  extend  this  inesti- 
mable privilege  to  their  dogs,  hoping  that  the  heavenly 
food  will  make  them  better  hunters. ^^  Even  so  at  the 
"palio,"  a  horse-race  held  for  centuries  twice  every 
year  at  Siena,  which  I  myself  have  witnessed,^®  before 
the  race  the  horses  and  jockeys  are  taken  into  a  church, 
where  the  host  is  offered  to  the  jockey  to  kiss  and  to 
the  horse  to  smell. 

But  not  all  our  examples  of  god-eating  are  to  be 
found  among  "the  beastly  devices  of  the  heathen." 
"In  Europe  the  Catholic  Church  has  resorted  to  similar 
means  for  enabling  the  pious  to  ^enjoy  the  ineffable 
privilege  of  eating  the  persons  of  the  Infant  God  and 
his  Mother.  For  this  purpose  images  of  the  Madonna 
are  printed  on  some  soluble  and  harmless  substance 
and  sold  in  sheets  like  postage  stamps.  The  worshiper 
buys  as  many  of  these  sacred  images  as  he  has  occasion 
for,  and,  affixing  one  or  more  of  them  to  his  food, 
swallows  the  bolus  ....  In  his  youth  Count  Hoens- 
broech  and  his  devout  mother  used  to  consume  portions 

^^  spirits,  II,  93. 

27  Decree  of  Council  of  Trent,  C.  Mirbt,  Quellen  zur  Geschichte 
des  Papsttums  und  des  romischen  Katholizismus,  3d  ed.,  1911,  251. 

28  C.  G.  Seligman,  The  Veddas,  p.  130,  quoted  W.  M.  Groton,  The 
Christian  Eucharist  and  the  Pagan  Cults,  1914,  8. 

29  I  saw  the  race,  but  not  the  consecration  of  the  horses.  This  was 
witnessed  by  my  sister,  Dr.  Winifred  Smith,  of  Vassar  College.  So  in 
Spain,  I  am  informed,  bullfighters  take  the  sacrament  before  they  enter 
the  arena.  As  the  danger  of  death  is  almost  nil,  it  is  probably  con- 
ceived as  a  charm  to  strengthen  them. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  31 

of  God  and  his  Mother  with  their  meals."  The  prac- 
tice was  officially  sanctioned  by  a  decree  of  the  Inqui- 
sition, in  July,  1903.^° 

It  is  a  fact  of  the  highest  importance  that  the  sacra- 
mental meal  attained  great  prominence  in  many  re- 
ligions among  the  peoples  of  the  Mediterranean  dur- 
ing the  centuries  just  preceding  and  just  following  the 
rise  of  Christianity.  Such  meals  were  in  many  cases 
interpreted  by  a  refined  culture  in  a  way  less  gross 
than  had  been  the  case  earlier.  They  were  compared 
with  the  banquets  given  at  funerals  in  memory  of  the 
dead;  they  were  likened  to  the  common  meals  at  Sparta 
and  elsewhere;^'  they  were  communion  with  the  god 
simply  in  that  he  was  the  host  and  the  worshippers  his 
guests.  Thus  dinners  of  a  purely  social  nature  were 
sometimes  held  in  temples  in  order  to  enjoy  the  com- 
pany of  the  god.'^  But  the  fundamental  idea,  vaguely 
expressed  but  always  present,  was  the  old  one,  that  the 
consecrated  food  was  the  means  of  obtaining  obsession 
by  a  good  spirit,  of  becoming  identified  with  the  god  of 
the  Mystery.^^  Caution  had  to  be  exercised  lest  bad 
demons  would  also  enter  the  body  of  the  communi- 
cant. So  comparatively  enlightened  a  philosopher  as 
Porphyry  ^*  assures  us  that  demons  delight  in  impure 
meats  and  enter  those  who  use  them. 

Fanatic  Egypt  saw  nothing  incongruous  in  treating 
her  gods  like  cattle  from  whose  milk  or  flesh  divinity 
could  be  extracted.  One  of  her  Pharaohs  achieved 
immortality  by  sucking  the  breast  of  a  goddess;  ^^  an- 

30  Frazer,  Spirits,  II,  94.     Mirbt,   p.  400. 

31  P.  Gardner,  Religious  Experience  of  St.  Paul,  1911,  no. 
^-Papyri  Oxyr.,  I,   no,   edited   by  Milllgan,   p.  97;   cf.   Carpenter, 

Phases  of  Early  Christianity,  251  ff. 

33  K.  Lake,  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  196. 
3*  Eusebius,  Praeparatio  evangelica,  IV,  23. 
35  Dietrich,  loi. 


32  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

other  took  a  more  drastic  method:  "His  servants,"  we 
are  told,  "have  captured  the  gods  with  a  lasso,  they 
have  found  them  and  brought  them  down,  have  bound 
them  and  cut  their  throats  and  taken  out  their  entrails 
and  carved  them  and  cooked  them  in  hot  cauldrons. 
The  king  consumes  their  power  and  eats  their  souls. 
The  great  gods  are  his  breakfast,  the  middle-sized  ones 
his  dinner  and  the  small  ones  his  supper.  .  .  The 
king  consumes  all  that  comes  to  him.  Eagerly  he 
swallows  all  their  magic  power.  He  becomes  an  heir 
of  might,  greater  than  all  heirs;  he  becomes  lord  of 
heaven,  for  he  ate  all  the  crowns  and  bracelets;  he  ate 
the  wisdom  of  every  god,"  ^^ 

The  blood  of  Osiris  was  a  great  charm,  which, 
poured  in  a  cup  of  wine,  made  Isis  drinking  it  feel  love 
for  him  in  her  heart."  When  the  blood  could  not  be 
procured,  its  place  was  taken  by  simple  wine,  conse- 
crated by  this  hocus-pocus  said  seven  times:  "Thou  art 
wine  and  not  wine  but  the  head  of  Athene.  Thou  art 
wine  and  not  wine,  but  the  bowels  of  Osiris."  ^^ 

From  Persia  marched  forth  Mithra  to  dispute  the 
empire  of  the  world  with  Christ.  His  warriors  told 
how  the  hero  Saoshyaiit  would  kill  a  bull  and  of  his  fat, 
mingled  with  the  juice  of  the  white  haoma,  would  pre- 
pare a  bev^erage  assuring  immortality  to  all  who  tasted 
it.^®  That  the  bull  was  a  divine  animal  goes  without 
saying,  for  how  otherwise  could  his  flesh  be  the  "drug 
of  immortality?"  *°  The  sacramental  banquet,  how- 
ever, was  also  a  love-feast,  done  in  remembrance  of  the 

3^  Dietrich,  icxj. 

37  Griffith,  Demotic  Magical  Papyrus,  p.  107.  Reitzenstein,  Die 
hellenistischen  Mysterienreligionen  und  Paulus,  1910,  204. 

38  Kenyon,  Greek  Papyri,  1,   105 ;  Reitzenstein,  205. 

39  Dietrich,  102. 

*o  As  Ignatius  called  the  eucharist     Ad  Ephesios,  20. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  33 

supper  celebrated  by  the  sun  before  his  ascension/^  It 
could  only  be  partaken  of  after  long  initiation,  and 
was  rightly  regarded  at  Rome  as  "a  magical  meal."  ^^ 
So  similar  was  it  to  the  Christian  Supper  that  Justin 
Martyr  informs  us  it  was  directly  imitated  from  the 
institution  of  Christ  by  evil  demons,  who,  "in  the  mys- 
teries of  Mithra,  set  forth  bread  and  a  cup  of  water 
with  certain  explanations  in  the  ceremonial  of  initia- 
tion." *^  Tertullian  also  noted  the  resemblance,  so 
dangerous  for  simple  souls,  between  Mithraism  and 
Christianity.** 

Attis,  the  Phrygian  god  who  was  born  of  a  virgin, 
and  who  died  and  rose  again  at  Easter  time,  also  left 
his  followers  a  sacramental  meal.*^  His  worshipper 
could  say:  "I  have  eaten  from  the  drum,  I  have 
drunk  from  the  cymbal,  I  have  carried  the  earthen 
dish."  From  pictures  we  know  that  this  latter  was 
carried  on  the  head  in  exactly  the  style  in  which,  in  the 
Greek  Church,  the  holy  food  of  the  eucharist  was  car- 
ried by  the  deacons.*®  Another  point  of  similarity 
between  the  communions  of  Attis  and  Christ  was  the 
u$e  in  each  of  fish.*^ 

The  connection  of  fish  with  the  eucharist,  made  as 
early  as  the  composition  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,*®  and 
witnessed  by  inscriptions  in  the  catacombs,*®  is  another 

*^  F.  Cumont,  The  Mysteries  of  Mithra,  1903,  pp.  158  ff. 

*2  Dietrich,  102.     Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.,  XXX,  i,  6. 

*3  Justin  Martyr,  First  Apology,  I,  66;  Clemen,  Primitive  Christian- 
ity and  its  Non-Jeivish  Sources,  1912,  261. 

■**Reinach,  Cultes,  Mythes  et  Religions,  1905  ff,  II,  227. 

*5  Frazer,  Adonis,  I,  272  ff,  309  f. 

*8  Dietrich,  103  f. 

*'^  M.  Bruckner,  "Attis,"  Die  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegenivart, 
5  vols.,  1909  ff. 

^*  Mark  vi.  38;  Matt.  xiv.  17;  Luke  ix.  13.  That  this  meal  was 
eucharistic  will  be  shown  later. 

4^  An  epitaph  at  Rome,  dating  100-130,  represents  the  eucharist  by 


34  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

case  of  the  absorption  by  the  conquering  cult  of  the 
elements  of  vanquished  superstitions.  One  cannot,  In- 
deed, explain  it,  as  has  been  done,'"  by  saying  that 
"Jesus  found  at  Bethsaida  ...  a  local  pagan 
cult  of  the  widely-spread  fish-god,  availed  himself  of  it, 
and  spiritualized  it  by  means  of  an  etymological  coinci- 
dence between  lehem,  bread,  luhm,  fish,  and  luhm, 
breath  or  spirit."  This  is  too  uncritical  of  the  docu- 
ments, and  assumes  too  much  history  in  them.  But 
of  the  connection  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Dagon, 
meaning  "fish,"  was  worshiped  by  the  Philistines 
(Judges  xvi.  23),  and  Lucian  tells  us  of  fish  kept  in 
sacred  fountains  from  which  they  were  ritually  taken 
and  eaten. ®^  The  designation  of  Christ  as  'Ix^v?  was 
not,  as  commonly  stated,  an  anagram,  but  a  genuine 
case  of  syncretism.  He  was  called  the  Big  Fish  and 
his  worshipers  little  fishes.  Thus  an  ancient  Christian 
inscription  of  Abercius  says:  "Faith  shows  me  my 
way  everywhere  and  furnishes  my  food:  even  a  fish 
from  a  fountain,  large  and  pure,  which  a  chaste  virgin 
captures."  An  allusion  to  baptism  is  often  seen  in  this, 
though  it  much  better  suits  the  eucharist,  or  perhaps 
the  ancient  custom  of  administering  the  eucharist  im- 
mediately after  baptism.  In  former  centuries  eating 
fish  was  symbolic  of  eating  Christ's  flesh,  just  as  now 
it  is  eaten  by  Catholics  on  fast-days,  especially  as  a 
preparation  for  communion. 

Rome,  too,  did  not  lack  her  sacramental  meals.  One 
of  the  titles  of  Jupiter  was  "dapalis,"  "he  of  the  feast," 

loaves  and  fishes.  M.  Goguel,  L'Eucharistie  des  orig'ines  a  Justin 
Martyr,  1910,  279. 

5*^  Eisler,  Transactions  of  Third  International  Congress  of  Re- 
ligions, II,  352. 

51  Reinach,  C.  M.  R.,  Ill,  46  ff. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  35 

and  the  priest  who  presided  at  the  sacrifice  was  called 
"epulo,"  "feaster."  ^^  At  ancient  Aricia,  near  Rome, 
it  is  believed  that  loaves  were  baked  in  the  image  of  the 
King  of  the  Wood  and  eaten  sacramentally/^ 

Something  has  been  urged  against  the  fact  that  the 
students  of  comparative  religion  have  found  the  eating 
of  a  god  in  so  many  and  diverse  religions.  Surely,  it  is 
said,  one  key  is  too  simple  to  fit  so  many  locks;  the 
day  of  the  vegetation  god,  killed  and  eaten  and  reviv- 
ing, will  go  the  way  of  the  sun-god  theory  of  Max 
Miiller.  When  one  sees  the  vegetation  myth  in  Aus-, 
tralia  and  Mexico,  in  Orestes  and  Hamlet,'^*  he  must 
be  the  victim  of  a  monomania.  But  it  is  certain  that 
many  other  religious  ideas,  whether  true  or  delusive, 
the  existence  of  gods,  immortality,  the  power  of  witch- 
craft, have  until  recently  been  held  all  but  universally: 
semper,  ubique  et  ah  omnibus.  Communion  with  a 
god  by  eating  him  is  just  one  of  those  ideas  which  arise 
naturally  in  a  certain  stage  of  culture,  and,  under 
myriad  forms,  survive  in  a  hundred  different  societies. 
A  similar  one  is  baptism;  the  idea  found  in  very  many 
cults,  that,  by  washing,  a  man  can  cleanse  his  soul  as 
well  as  his  body. 

So  in  Greece  we  find  the  pre-Christian  communion 
in  many  forms.  After  the  great  age  of  art  and  phil- 
osophy there  was  a  reaction  which  Gilbert  Murray 
has  called  "The  Failure  of  Nerve."  The  hungry 
generations  trod  men  down  as  they  had  never  done 
before;  there  went  up  a  great  cry  for  respite  from  this 

^2  Dietrich,  229. 

53  Frazer,  Spirits,  II,  95. 

5*  Gilbert  Murray,  Hamlet  and  Orestes,  1914.  "One  of  my  friends 
has  assured  me  that  every  one  knew  it  before;  another  has  observed 
that  most  learned  men,  sooner  or  later,  go  a  little  mad."  He  refers 
primarily  to  the  Hamlet  of  Saxo  Grammaticus. 


36  CHRISTL\X  THEOPHL\GY 

world,  for  salvation.  To  supply  this  need  arose  the 
Myster\-  Religions,  of  which  Orphism  is  a  good  exam- 
ple, promising  rest  for  the  soul  and  union  with  God. 
But  they  kept  the  old  forms  to  a  great  extent,  particu- 
larly the  m\T:h  and  ritual  of  the  god  torn  to  pieces  and 
devoured  by  his  adorers. 

Traces  of  this  belief  are  found  in  the  ancient 
Minoan  ci\-ilization."'  A  god  was  there  sacrificed  in 
the  form  of  a  bull,  possibly  at  some  earlier  period  than 
we  know  in  the  form  of  a  child.'"'  In  many  an  old 
Greek  legend  we  see  the  original  sacrifice  and  devour- 
mg  of  a  divine  animal.  So  common  were  these  motrcs 
that  Greek  has  special  words  to  designate  them: 
(rraparYfto^  for  the  ritual  tearing  of  the  animal  to  pieces 
and  afxozKiyia  for  the  feast  of  raw  flesh.  Thus  Acteon 
was  a  sacred  stag  worshiped  at  Plataeae  and  torn  by 
adorers  who  called  themselves  does ; ''  Hippoh-tus  was 
a  horse  rent  by  horses ;  '-  Orpheus  was  a  fox  similarly 
treated  by  "\-ixens,"  as,  quite  rightly  no  doubt,  his 
devotees  called  themselves.'^  In  Orpheus  the  early 
church  justly  saw  a  prototype  of  Christ.^"'  It  is  in- 
teresting to  note  that  the  worshippers  frequently,  if  not 
always,  called  themselves  by  the  name  of  the  beast  or 
god  they  adored.  Thus  the  followers  of  Bacchus  were 
called  Bacchi  and  Bacchae:^-  thus  the  worshippers  of 
Jesus  "put  on  Christ."  By  eating  the  eucharist  they 
became  o^eoi  »  Xp'.crr.p  just  as  did  the  votaries  of  Dio- 
nysus.^ 

^5  Famell,  Greece  and  Babylon,  26. 

^■°  Harrison,  Prolegomena,  489.     On  the  omophagia  ia  general,  4.78  ff. 

5-  Rdnach,  C.  M.  R..  III.  24  ff. 

5=  IbU.,  54  ff. 

59/*i*f,  II.  85  ff. 

«®  Harrison,  Prolegomena,  474;  Reinach.  C.  M.  R.  II.  83 

«i  Farnell.  Culu,  V,  150  ff. 

'--Lake,  Episilej  of  Paul,  214;  Reinach,  C.  M.  K,  II,  105. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  37 

Zeus  himself  was  sacrificed  at  Athens  in  the  form 
of  a  bull.  At  this  feast,  called  the  buphonia,  near  the 
summer  solstice,  an  ox  was  killed,  eaten  and  restored 
to  life  in  pantomime/''  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
the  feast  —  Aat?  —  became  a  personified  divinity,^^  just 
as  the  Roman  church,  in  instituting  the  feast  of  Corpus 
Christi  day,  near  midsummer,  has  presented  the  mys- 
tery of  the  mass  as  an  object  to  the  adoration  of  the 
people.  At  Delphi  also  a  bull,  called  Hosiater,  or  the 
Consecrator,  and  Isodaitos,  "He  of  the  equal  feast," 
was  immolated. ^^  Plato  doubtless  had  in  mind  one  of 
these  ceremonies  when  he  describes  ^^  the  killing  of  a 
bull  in  Atlantis,  and  the  drinking  of  his  blood  mingled 
with  wine.  This  was  accompanied  by  an  oath  to  deal 
justly,  reminding  us  of  the  oath  {sacramentum)  that 
Pliny  says  the  Christians  took  at  their  sacred  meal.^^ 

In  the  Eleuslnian  mysteries  animals  were  immolated 
to  Demeter  and  their  flesh  eaten  on  the  spot;**  there 
was  also  a  meal  of  KiKti^v^  a  mixture  of  grain  and  water, 
but  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  regarded  as  repre- 
senting the  goddess. *^^ 

But  of  all  the  "mysteries"  known  to  us,  that  of  Dio- 
nysus bears  the  closest  resemblance  to  that  of  Christ. 
The  god  of  wine  died  a  violent  death  and  was  brought 
to  life  again;  his  "passion,"  as  the  Greeks  called  it,  and 
his  resurrection  were  enacted  in  his  sacred  rites.  Ac- 
cording to  the  common  legend  the  son  of  Zeus  and  his 
daughter  Proserpina  was  given  by  jealous  Hera  to  the 

^3  Harrison,  Themis,  i\i. 

^^Ibid.,  146. 

^^  Ibid.,  155. 

^^  Ibid.,  163;  Plato,  Critias,  119. 

67  Pliny,  ep.  96. 

68  Foucart,  Les  Mysteres  d'Eleusis,  1914,  375  f. 

69  Ibid.,  378  flP. 


38  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Titans,  who  tore  him  to  pieces,  boiled  his  body  and  ate 
it  with  herbs.  His  heart  was  taken  back  to  Zeus  and 
Semele,  from  whom  he  was  reborn. ^°  As  this  doctrine 
was  spiritualized  his  resurrection  was  represented  in  a 
different  way  and  was  followed  by  an  ascension  to 
heaven. '^^  Thus  was  inculcated  the  doctrine  of  im- 
mortality; Plutarch  consoles  his  wife  for  the  death  of 
a  daughter  by  the  belief  in  a  future  life  as  taught  by 
tradition  and  revealed  by  the  mysteries  of  Dionysus. 

All  this  was  enacted  ritually  in  various  parts  of 
Greece.  As  is  so  often  the  case,  the  ritual  preceded 
the  legend,  which  was  invented  to  explain  a  misunder- 
stood custom,  in  this  case  the  sacramental  eating  of  a 
totemic  bull,^^  or,  in  some  cases,  of  a  kid,"  for  the  god 
inherited  the  ritual  of  both  beasts.  Thus  it  was  cele- 
brated at  Delphi;^*  and  thus  in  Crete.  In  all  cases 
the  animal  was  torn  to  pieces  and  a  fragment  of  his 
flesh  given  to  each  worshipper  and  eaten  raw  as  a  sacra- 
ment, in  order  to  impart  to  each  some  of  the  divine 
life."  At  first  this  was  doubtless  conceived  of  as  a  pure- 
ly physical  benefit,  but  by  the  fourth  century,  B.C., 
the  excellent  moral  effects  of  the  initiatory  feast  are 
stressed.  Thus,  in  a  fragment  of  Euripides's  Cretans, 
one  speaks  of  "lengthening  out  a  life  of  purity  from 
the  day  when  I  became  an  initiate  of  Idzean  Zeus, 
and  a  herdsman  of  night-roaming  Zagreus  [Dionysus], 
a  celebrant  of  the  meal  of  raw  flesh."  ^^     At  a  later 

^oPrazer,  Spirits,  I,  12  ff;  Reinach,  C.  M.  R.,  II,  58  fF. 

^^  Justin  Martyr,  First  Apology,  54 ;  Dialogue  ivith   Trypho,  69. 

"Reinach,  C.  M.  R.,  II,  58  ff. 

''^Ibid.,  96. 

■^^  Harrison,  Prolegomena,  440. 

■^5  Frazer,  Spirits,  II,  16. 

''^  Quoted,  Kennedy,  St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery  Religions,  1913,  257. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA     39 

stage  of  Orphic  theology,  some  offence  was  taken  at 
the  idea  of  killing  a  god,  and  the  myth  was  changed 
to  make  the  deity  the  sacrificer  and  communicant.  Thus 
we  find  a  god  sacrificed  to  himself,  and  eating  his  own 
flesh," —  a  striking  parallel  to  the  Last  Supper  and  to 
the  mass.  It  was  not  always  in  the  interests  of  humanity 
to  anthropomorphize  the  rite  too  much,  for  in  Chios 
and  Tenedos  Dionysus  was  represented  by  a  human 
victim  who  was  subjected  to  the  barbarous  rite  of  holy 
cannibalism.^® 

Now  all  this  seems  to  us  such  revolting  savagery 
that  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  it  became  imbeded  in 
a  religion  of  great  moral  purity  and  lofty  idealism. 
Such,  however,  is  the  case.  "The  belief  in  the  sacrifice 
of  Dionysus  himself  and  the  purification  of  man  by  his 
blood,"  remained,  according  to  Gilbert  Murray,  "a 
curious  relic  of  superstition  firmly  imbeded  in  Orph- 
ism,  a  doctrine  irrational  and  unintelligible,  and  for 
that  reason  wrapped  in  the  deepest  and  most  sacred 
mystery."  ^^  But  the  rite  continued;  for  the  wild  wor- 
shippers roamed  in  the  woods  and  tore  to  pieces  and 
ate  raw  whatever  animals  they  could  cope  with.  "It  is 
noteworthy,  and  throws  much  light  on  the  spirit  of 
Orphism,  that  apart  from  this  sacramental  tasting  of 
blood,  the  Orphic  worshipper  held  it  an  abomination  to 
eat  the  flesh  of  animals  at  all  .  .  .  .  It  fasci- 
nated him  just  because  it  was  so  incredibly  primitive 
and  uncanny;  because  it  was  a  mystery  which  trans- 
cended reason."  ®°  Euripides  has  transmuted  the  beast- 

''''  Frazer,  Spirits,  I,  23. 

78  Ibid.,    24. 

79  Bacchae,  note  on  p.  85  f. 
^^Ibid.,  p.  86. 


40  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

ly  rite  into  immortal  poetry.  He  thus  describes  the 
rending  of  the  animals:  ^^ 

"Great  uddered  kine  then  hadst  thou  seen 
Bellowing  in  sword-like  hands  that  cleave  and  tear, 
A  live  steer  riven  in  sunder,  and  the  air 
Tossed  with  rent  ribs  or  limbs  of  cloven  tread ; 
And  flesh  upon  the  branches  and  a  red 
Rain  from  the  deep  green  pines.  Yea,  bulls  of  pride, 
Horns  swift  to  rage,  were  fronted  and  aside 
Flung  stumbling  by  those  multitudinous  hands 
Dragged   pitilessly." 

And  through  it  all  the  maenads  feel  the  divine  pres- 
ence, and  adjure  it,  "O  God,  Beast,  Mystery,  come!" 
It  is  Dionysus  who  is  the  god  and  the  bull,  to  whom 
Pentheus  speaks,  when  he  sees  him,  as  follows :  ^^ 

"Is  it  a  Wild  Bull  this,  that  walks  and  waits 
Before  me?     There  are  horns  upon  thy  brow!  ^ 

What  art  thou,  man  or  beast?     For  surely  now 
The  Bull  is  on  thee!" 

When  the  new  religion  was  introduced  into  Italy,  it 
ran  a  course  for  a  time  something  like  that  of  Chris- 
tianity later.  In  the  first  place  its  votaries  were  ac- 
cused, like  the  Christians,  of  celebrating  holy  meals 
followed  by  sexual  debauches. ^^  Later  they  were  sup- 
pressed by  the  government.^*  That  nothing  might  be 
wanting  to  make  the  parallel  with  Christianity,  the 
word  "sacrament,"  ®^  originally  a  military  oath,  was 
applied  by  the  Romans  to  the  initiation.  Indeed  it  is 
certain  that  that  word  had  the  connotation  of  consecra- 

81  The  Bacchae,  line  700;  ibid.,  p.  44. 

^~  Ibid.,  line  920  ff,  p.  55. 

S3  Livy,  XXXIX,  8,  5,  quoted  Reitzenstein,  88. 

s*  E.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  Chap.  XV. 
He  says  that  the  language  of  Tacitus  in  describing  the  introduction 
and  attempted  suppression  of  the  Christian  worship,  is  almost  similar 
to  that  of  Livy  about  the  Bacchanalia. 

85  Livy,  XXXIX,  15,  13;  Reitzenstein,  66. 


PRAEPARATIO  EVANGELICA  41 

tion  long  before  the  rise  of  the  Roman  church.     It  was 
employed,  or  example,  by  Apuleius,  for  the  visible  sign"^  / 
of  the  spiritual  grace  vouchsafed  to  the  worshippers  of 
Isis.^*' 

As  men  became  softer  and  more  fastidious,  substi- 
tutes were  found  for  the  raw  flesh  and  blood  which 
were  originally  elements  of  their  communion.  Thus 
the  sacred  Ivy,  regarded  as  an  impersonation  of  Dio-  ^ 
nysus  was  substituted  for  his  flesh,*^  and  wine  for  his 
blood.*® 

The  connection  of  wine  and  blood  was  as  familiar 
to  antiquity  as  it  is  to  us  through  the  eucharist.  It  was 
often  an  offering  to  the  gods  and  a  means  of  commun- 
ion with  them.*^  The  blood  was  the  life;  who  imbibed 
it  absorbed  the  spirit.  A  Greek  word  for  soul,  <9v/aos, 
is  etymologically  fumus,  the  hot  "steam"  from  blood.^" 
The  Romans  sealed  their  oaths  by  drinking  a  mixture 
of  wine  and  blood  called  asseratum.^^  Among  the  He- 
brews, too,  wine  was  called  the  "blood  of  the  grape."  ^^ 
Offerings  of  bread  and  wine  were  made  to  Asklepios, 
the  god  of  healing.^^ 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  tradition  of  the 
eaten  god  was  kept  up  by  the  mysteries  among  the  low- 
er strata  of  society  only.  In  the  world  of  art  and  let- 
ters best  known  to  us  there  prevailed  an  enlightened 

86  Apuleius,  XI,  15,  quoted  ibid. 

87  Plutarch,  Quaestiones  Rom.,  112;  Clemen,  258;  J.  Rendel  Harris, 
"Origin  of  the  Cult  of  Dionysus,"  Bulletin  of  J.  Rylands  Library,  1915, 
p.   119  ff. 

88  Justin  Martyr,  First  Apology,  54;  Dialogue  'u;ith  Trypho,  69. 
89Kircher,  Die  sakrale  Bedeutung  des   tVeines  im  Altertum,  1910, 

45- 

^^Ibid.,  78. 

^'^Ibid.,  83. 

^~  Ibid.,  85.  They  also  treated  wine  as  blood,  pouring  it  out  at  the 
base  of  altars.     Robertson  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  1894,  p.  230. 

93  Kircher,  92  f. 


42  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

skepticism.  Not  many  wise,  not  many  noble,  were 
called  to  salvation  by  the  blood  of  Bacchus  or  of  Attis. 
The  expressed  opinion  of  a  Roman  philosopher  as  to 
the  Real  Presence  is  very  much  what  the  expressed 
opinion  of  a  modern  scientist  is  now:  "When  we  call 
corn  Ceres  and  wine  Bacchus,"  says  Cicero,®*  "we  use 
a  common  figure  of  speech;  but  do  you  imagine  that 
anybody  is  so  insane  as  to  believe  that  the  thing  he  feeds 
on  is  god?"  The  answer  then,  as  now,  was  in  the  af- 
firmative. 


9*D^  Natura  deorum,  III,  i6,  41.    Frazer,  Spirits,  II,  167. 


IL     PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE 

"The  most  excellent  of  the  sacraments"  ^  was  bor- 
rowed by  the  Christians  from  the  older  mystery  relig- 
ions. That  they  attributed  the  institution  of  their  rite 
to  their  founder  was  inevitable.  Many  of  the  classic 
myths  originated  as  explanations  of  ritual,  in  the  desire 
to  show  how  Dionysus  or  Attis  or  Osiris  had  once  done 
what  their  initiates  now  re-enacted.^  The  account  of 
the  Last  Supper  is  but  an  etiological  cult  story,  analo- 
gous to  the  Greek  myths  or  to  the  Hebrew  fable  of  the 
Passover  in  Exodus  xii,  designed  to  authorize  a  custom 
otherwise  etablished  in  the  earliest  community.^  "The 
Christ  of  Mark,"  says  Loisy,  "is  like  the  gods  of  the 
mysteries;  what  he  does  is  the  type  of  what  happens  to 
his  worshippers  and  what  they  must  do  .  .  .  The 
idea  and  form  of  this  institution  were  suggested 
by  Paul,  who  conceived  them  in  a  vision,  on 
the  model  of  the  pagan  mysteries."  *  In  fact,  as  soon 
as  any  institution  was  established,  firmly  or  otherwise, 
it  was  fathered  on  Christ,  or  at  least  on  the  apostles. 

1  So  called  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  Mirbt,  226. 

^Reinach,  C.  M.  R.,  II,  p.  vi,  says  it  is  simply  a  matter  of  good 
faith  to  apply  to  the  Gospels  the  same  process  which  has  been  gener- 
ally acknowledged  as  the  correct  solution  of  the  classic  myths.  Some 
Christians  now  admit  the  likeness  of  the  eucharist  and  the  earlier 
theophagy.  See  Catholic  Encydopadia,  and  E.  A.  James,  Primitive 
Belief  and  Ritual,  1917. 

3  So  called  by  Heitmiiller,  R.  G.  G.,  I,  25,  though  illogically  he 
tries  to  extract  some  history  from  the  epoj  \670j.  Long  arguments 
against  his  position  and  that  of  Reitzenstein  and  Dietrich  in  Schweitz- 
er, Paulinische  Forschung,  152  ff,  and  by  G.  P.  von  Wetter  in  Z.  N.  T. 
JV.,  1913,  pp.  202  ff. 

4  Loisy,  L'evangile  selon  Marc,  1912,  405. 


44  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Thus  the  mingling  of  water  with  wine  was  said  by 
Cyprian  to  have  begun  by  Jesus ;  ^  thus  the  self-com- 
munion of  priests  was  wrongly  said  to  have  descended 
"as  it  were  from  apostolic  tradition."  ^  On  the  way 
the  Gnostics  attributed  all  their  peculiar  institutions 
to  Jesus  a  long  and  instructive  essay  has  been  written 
by  C.  Schmidt/ 

But  though  we  see  nothing  historic  in  the  Last  Sup- 
per, and  are  convinced  that  Paul  founded  the  eucharist, 
it  is  worth  while  asking  what  analogous  conceptions, 
if  any,  prevailed  in  the  pre-Pauline  community  about 
the  sacramental  use  of  food.  We  shall  find  that  there 
are  two  such  conceptions  plainly  discernible;  the  first 
that  of  the  Messianic  feast,  the  second  that  of  spiritual 
nourishment.  Both  these  are  founded  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. There,  though  sacrifice  is  a  covenant  with 
Yaweh,  and  a  communion  meal,  there  is  no  trace  of  the 
eating  of  a  divine  animal.^  The  Jews  of  the  historic 
period  had  gone  beyond  this  conception,  just  as  had 
the  "Olympian"  religion  of  the  lonlans,  represented  by 
Homer.  But  the  idea  that  when  the  Messiah  came  he 
should  eat  and  drink  with  his  elect,  is  found  in  many 
places  in  the  Jewish  writings,^  and  doubtless  consider- 
ably influenced  the  Christian  supper.  It  is  represented 
in  the  document  known  as  "Q"  by  the  marriage  feast 
of  the  king's  son.^"  It  is  also  prominent  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse," though  neither  it  nor  Q  nor  the  Jewish-Chris- 

5  Quoted  in  Catechism  of  Council  of  Trent. 

^  Council  of  Trent,  Mirbt,  228. 

^  Texte   und    Untersuchungen,   VIII. 

8  H.  P.  Smith,  The  Religion  of  Israel,  1914,  pp.  39  f. 

9  Isaiah  Iv.  iff;  Ixv.  12  ff;  xxv.  68;  Enoch,  xxiv  and  xxv;  Test. 
Levi,  xxiii.  11  and  Ixii.  14.  Schweitzer,  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus, 
1910. 

^°  Matt.  xxii.  1-14;  Luke  xiv.  15-24. 

11  Apoc.  ii.  7,  17;  iii.  21;  vii.  16  f;  xix. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  45 

tian  epistles  of  James  or  Jude  or  2  Peter,  know  any- 
thing of  the  eucharist/-  Thus  also  Luke  makes  Jesus 
say  to  his  disciples :  "And  I  assign  unto  you,  as  my 
father  has  assigned  unto  me,  a  kingdom,  that  ye  may 
eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom."  " 

The  other  idea  which  amalgamated  naturally  with 
the  eucharist  was  that  of  a  spiritual  nourishment.  "Man 
cannot  live  by  bread  alone,"  says  the  Deuteronomist, 
"but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth 
of  God."  ^*  The  manna  was  to  the  Psalmist  "bread 
from  heaven."  ^^  Isaiah  offered  bread  and  wine  and 
milk  of  a  spiritual  nature  without  money  and  without 
price. ^"^  "Those  who  eat  me,"  says  Wisdom  in  Ecclesi- 
asticus,"  "will  always  hunger  for  me;  those  who  drink 
me  will  always  thirst  for  me  again."  Philo,  too,  spoke 
of  the  Logos  as  the  bread  from  heaven. ^^  Nor  do  I 
doubt  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  fourth  petition 
in  the  Lord's  Prayer:  "Give  us  this  day  our  supernat- 
ural [i.  e.,  spiritual]  bread."  The  Greek  word 
eTTtowto?  is  translated  in  the  Latin  versions  stipersubstan- 
tialis,'^  followed  by  Wyclif  with  "bread  above  other 

12  The  idea  that  Apoc.  ii.  17  refers  to  the  eucharist  is  untenable. 
Hibbert,  XI,  140  ff.  Q  has  nothing  even  on  the  Passion.  Harnack, 
Sayings  of  Jesus,  1908,  233.  W.  Haupt,  Worte  Jesu  und  Gemeinde- 
Ueberlieferung,  191 3. 

13  Luke  xxii.  30.  It  is  uncertain  whether  the  original  was  in  Q. 
Probably  not,  as  Matt,  lacks  the  verse,  and  the  word  diaridefiat  is 
eucharistic. 

1*  Deut.  viii.  3. 
15  Psalm  Ixxviii.  24  f. 
1^  Isaiah  Iv.  i  f. 

I'^XXIV,  29.  Many  other  references  in  Stone,  History  of  the  Doc- 
trine of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  1909,  i.  3. 

18  Quoted  Pfleiderer,  IV,  23  ff. 

19  In  Matt.  vi.  11.  The  translation  of  the  same  word  in  Luke  xi.  3 
is  quotidianus,  and  this  form  is  adopted  in  the  ritual.  Most  modern 
versions  follow  this  second  rendering,  "daily,"  which  is  also  supported 
by  F.  S.  Chase,  The  Lord's  Prayer,  1891;  F.  Blass,  Grammatik  des 
neutestamentlichen  Griechisch,  fourth  edition,  1913,  §  123;  Dobschiitz, 
Harvard  Theological  Revieiv,  1914,  p.  313. 


46  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

substance"  and  the  Doual  Bible  with  "supersubstantial 
bread."  One  ancient  Latin  manuscript  in  the  British 
Museum  reads  "Panem  verbum  Dei  celestem  da  nobis 
hodie."  ^°  evidently  a  gloss,  but  a  good  one.  To  express 
so  simple  an  idea  as  "daily"  the  author  of  Q  would  cer- 
tainly not  choose  a  word  so  rare  that  it  is  not  met  with 
elsewhere,  was  absolutely  unknown  to  the  learned  Ori- 
gen  "  and  puzzled  early  evangelists."  Moreover  "dai- 
ly" would  be  tautological,  having  just  been  said.^^  Fur- 
ther, the  petition  for  bread  would  contradict  the  injunc- 
tion given  a  little  later,  to  take  no  thought  for  what  to 
eat  or  to  drink,  but  to  seek  first  the  kingdom.  All  the 
other  petitions  in  this  early  Christian  prayer  are  for 
spiritual  blessings,  and  the  intrusion  of  the  mere  bodily 
needs  would  be  strange.  Etymologically  the  word  is 
compared  by  Liddell  and  Scott  to  fTn^eravo's,  but  it  seems 
better  to  derive  it  from  ini  meaning  "super"  and  oiaU 
meaning  "substance,"  and  to  compare  it  with  cTroupavtos, 
"superheavenly,"  in  other  New  Testament  writings. 

The  idea  of  spiritual  nourishment  offered  directly  by 
God  to  the  believer  is  also  developed  in  the  Johannine 
writings  and  in  what  was  one  of  their  principal  sources, 
the  Odes  of  Solomon.  Written  probably  by  a  Disciple 
of  the  Baptist  at  Ephesus  very  near  the  middle  of  the 
first  century,^*  one  of  these  poems  (XIX,  i  ff)  says: 
"A  cup  of  milk  was  offered  to  me  and  I  drank  it  in  the 
sweetness  of  the  delight  of  the  Lord.     The  Son  is  the 

^'^  E.  S.  Buchanan,  iiriovaios,  Expositor,  191J.,  p.  423. 

21  De  oratione,  XXVII,  7. 

22  The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  rendered  "to-morrow's  bread."  The 
Acts  of  Thomas  (Pick,  Apocryphal  Acts,  1909,  144)  omitted  this  peti- 
tion altogether.  Cf.  Cyril's  Catechetical  Lectures,  quoted  by  Stone, 
I,  91. 

23  Matt.  vi.  25 ;  Luke  xii.  22. 

24  Preserved  Smith,  "The  Disciples  of  John  and  the  Odes  of  Solo- 
mon," Monist,  1915,  pp.  161-190. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  47 

cup,  and  he  who  was  milked  is  the  Father  and  she  who 
milked  him  is  the  Holy  Spirit."  "  Elsewhere  in  these 
poems,  which  nowhere  have  any  allusion  to  the  euchar- 
ist,^®  milk  and  honey  are  spoken  of  as  the  mystic  food 
of  believers. ^^  It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connec- 
tion that  milk  and  honey  were  added  to  the  first  com- 
munion in  the  Monophysite  churches  of  Armenia.''* 
This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  feeding  with  milk 
was  actually  done  as  symbolic  of  the  new  and  spiritual 
birth  of  the  child.  Sallustius''  speaks  of  "feeding  on 
milk  as  though  we  were  being  born  again,"  in  the  rit- 
ual of  Attis.  Perhaps  the  same  thought  lies  back  of 
Paul's  simile  "milk  for  babes"  (i  Cor.  vi.  5).  But  it 
is  plainest  in  the  First  Epistle  of  Peter,  so  called,  in 
the  words  translated  in  our  Revised  Version :  ^°  "As 
newborn  babes,  long  for  the  spiritual  milk  which  is 
without  guile."  The  Authorized  Version  in  this  case 
came  nearer  to. the  true  meaning  when  it  rendered 
XoyLKov  aSoXov  ydXa  "sincere  milk  of  the  word,"  provided 
only  we  write  Word  with  a  capital,  and  understand  it 
of  the  Logos. 

But  neither  the  celestial  bread  nor  the  milk  of  the 
Logos  constituted  a  ritual  meal.  It  is  practically  cer- 
tain, however,  that  the  first  Christian  community  had 
such  prior  to  the  institution  of  the  eucharist  by  Paul." 

25  Reading   of   Burkitt's   manuscript   of   the   Odes,   Journal   of   T/i. 
Studies,  1 912. 
^^Monisi,  i86. 

27  J.  Rendel  Harris,  T/ie  Odes  and  Psalms  of  Solomon,  second  edi- 
tion, 191 1,  p.  80. 

28  Conybeare,  "Eucharist"  in  Encyclopedia  Britannica. 

29  "On  the  Gods,"  translated  by  G.  Murray,  Greek  Religion,  p.  193. 
^0  I  Peter  ii.  2.     On  this  Reitzenstein,  Mysterienreligionen,  156,  and 

on  similar  thoughts  in  Egyptian  religions,  ibid.,  157. 

31  Achelis,  Das  Christentum  in  den  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderten, 
1912,  I,  172-83;  II,  78  fl;  Carpenter,  251  ff. 


48  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Precedent  for  such  could  be  found  in  Jewish  custom,^^ 
and  among  the  Essenes^^  and  probably  also  in  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Disciples  of  John.^*  This  meal  was  known 
as  the  "love-feast,"  and  persisted  in  certain  quarters 
side  by  side  with  the  eucharist  for  many  years.  It  is 
alluded  to  by  Jude^^  and  described  by  TertuUian.^*' 
Whether  any  traces  of  it  can  be  found  in  the  Gospels 
or  in  Acts,  colored  as  these  are  by  Pauline  theology,  is 
more  than  doubtful. 

If  we  read  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  the 
order  in  which  they  were  written,  the  first  account  of 
the  eucharist  is  found  in  i  Corinthians,  written  from 
Ephesus  at  about  Easter  time,  probably  in  the  year 
^^.  There  Paul  speaks  of  its  institution  in  words 
(xi.  23  ff)  which,  to  bring  out  their  literal  meaning, 
I  translate  into  ufiavoidably  awkward  English:  "For  / 
received  over  from  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  deliv- 
ered over  to  you,  how  that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night 
in  which  he  was  delivered  over,  took  bread,  and  having 
blessed  it,  broke  and  said:  This  is  my  body  which  is 
for  you.  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  In  like  man- 
ner also  the  cup  after  supper,  saying.  This  cup  is  the 
new  covenant  in  my  blood.  Do  this,  as  often  as  ye 
drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  proclaim  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come.  So  that  whoever  eats  the 
bread  and  drinks  the  cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily  is 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord.     But  let  a 

32Josephus,  Ant.,  XIV,  10,  8;  S.  J.  Case,  The  Evolution  of  Early 
Christianity,  1914,  p.  340. 

33  R.  G.  G.  I.,  38. 

3*  The  Mandaeans  or  Sabaeans,  the  spiritual  descendants  of  the 
Disciples  of  the  Baptists,  had  a  supper  consisting  of  "bites  and  water." 
M.  Bruckner,  Der  sterbende  und  auferstehende  Gotheiland,  1908,  p.  47. 

35  Jude,  12. 

36  Tertullian,  Apology,  cap.  39. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  49 

man  try  himself  and  thus  eat  of  the  bread  and  drink 
of  the  cup.  For  who  eats  and  drinks  not  discerning  the 
body  is  eating  and  drinking  judgment  to  himself.  For 
this  cause  many  among  you  are  weak  and  sickly  and  not 
a  few  sleep." 

It  is  an  official  dogma  of  the  Catholic  Church  that 
these  words  should  be  taken  as  history."  The  Cath- 
olics, less  subjective  than  the  Protestants,  admit  that 
Paul  received  a  special  revelation  on  the  subject,  only 
they  say  that  it  revealed  to  him  exactly  what  really 
happened.^^  Modern  Protestant  scholars  have  felt  the 
intrinsic  absurdity  of  this  and  have  argued  that  Paul 
could  not  have  received  a  special  revelation  on  this 
point,  because  it  would  not  be  in  accordance  with  "the 
acknowledged  principles  of  economy  in  the  use  of  mir- 
acles," for  Paul  to  receive  by  revelation  what  might 
have  been  learned  by  other  means.^^  This  old-fash- 
ioned point  of  view  will  have  less  weight  with  impar- 
tial scholars  than  the  other  argument  advanced,  that 
Paul  uses  the  words  "received"  and  "delivered"  in 
his  account  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus, 
which,  it  is  commonly  believed,  he  learned  from  the 
other  apostles.  But  reasons  have  been  put  forward  to 
show  that  here,  too,  Paul  is  really  giving  the  results 
of  his  own  subjective  visions.^"  These  very  words, 
"received"   and  "delivered,"  were  used  in  the  Pirke 

37  Syllabus  of  Pius  X,   1907,  Mirbt,  p.  409. 

38Renz,   Geschichte  des  Messopfer-Begriffs,  2  vols.,   1901  f,  I,   122. 

39  Lambert,  The  Sacraments  in  the  Neiv  Testament,  1903. 

*o  Preserved  Smith,  "A  New  Light  on  Peter  and  Paul,"  Hibbert, 
July,  1913.  The  conclusions  here  advanced  have  been  accepted  by 
Solomon  Reinach  who  translated  the  article  in  French  and  published 
it  in  the  Bibliothegue  de  propagande,  Oct.  15,  191 3.  I  do  not  deny  the 
historicity  of  Jesus,  nor  the  fact  of  his  death  upon  the  cross;  but  I 
contend  that  the  specific  accounts  of  the  passion  and  resurrection 
found  in  the  Gospels  emanated  from  Paul. 


50  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Aboth,  i.  I,  of  what  Moses  received  directly  from  Je- 
hovah on  Sinai  and  delivered  to  elders.*^  They  were 
also  technical  terms  of  the  pagan  mysteries/^  If  we 
will  only  listen  to  Paul  himself  we  shall  learn  whence 
he  got  his  doctrine:  "The  gospel  which  was  preached 
by  me  Is  not  after  man.  For  neither  did  I  receive  it 
from  man,  nor  was  I  taught  it,  but  it  came  to  me 
through  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  When 
it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God  ...  to  reveal 
his  Son  in  me,  .  .  .  immediately  I  conferred  not 
with  flesh  and  blood,  neither  went  I  up  to  Jerusalem 
to  them  which  were  apostles  before  me:  but  I  went 
up  Into  Arabia:  and  again  I  returned  unto  Damascus. 
Then  after  three  years  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  visit 
Cephas  and  tarried  with  him  fifteen  days."  *^  Later, 
Paul  was  kind  enough  to  instruct  these  Jewish  apostles 
in  the  gospel  he  had  received,  though  he  dared  not  to 
do  it  publicly.**  How  he  obtained  these  revelations  in 
Paradise  he  tells  elsewhere. *°  As  he  "received"  the 
story  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  thus,*®  he  was 
perfectly  consistent  in  asserting  "Christ  was  raised 
according  to  my  gospel."  *^  The  whole  thing  was 
"God's  wisdom  in  a  mystery,"  *^  and  this  mystery  itself 
was  Christ:  "He  who  was  manifested  In  the  flesh, 
justified  In  the  spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  among 
the  nations. .  .  *^ 

*^  J.  Weiss,  in  Arch'tv  fiir  Religionsivissenschajt,  1913. 
*2  Clemen,   233. 
43  Galatians,  i.  n  flF. 
^^Ibid.,  ii.  2. 
*5  2  Cor.  xii.  2  ft. 
*^  1   Cor.  XV.  4. 

^"^  2  Tim.  ii.  8.     The  pericope,  according  to  many  scholars,  is  Paul's, 
though  the  whole  epistle  is  not. 

48  I  Cor.  ii.  7. 

49  I  Tim.  iii.  i6.     The  letter  is  not  by  Paul,  but  well  expresses  the 
primitive  Christian  idea. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  51 

The  German  Wrede  has  put  us  under  a  great  debt 
by  at  last  writing  a  biography  of  the  Tarsian,^"  show- 
ing both  how  it  was  possible  psychologically  for  Paul 
to  evolve  these  myths  and  possible  historically  for  him 
to  foist  them  on  the  Christian  church.  But  this  is  not 
the  place  to  discuss  the  whole  extent  of  Paul's  myth- 
ology; all  that  here  concerns  us  is  his  derivation  of  the 
eucharist.  A  priori,  the  possibility  of  his  dependence 
on  the  Mysteries  cannot  be  denied. ^^  It  has  been 
proved  from  linguistic  evidence,  proved  to  the  hilt, 
that  Paul  was  saturated  in  the  current  conceptions  of 
the  Mystery  Religions, ^^  prominent  among  which  was 
that  of  the  eaten  body  of  the  Saviour  God,  who,  in 
human  form,  should  live,  suffer  violent  death  and  rise 
again.  He  himself  speaks  of  "the  table  of  demons," 
i.  e.,  of  false  gods,  and  of  "communion  with  demons" 
as  analogous  to  the  communion  with  Jesus  ( i  Cor.  x 
21).  Moreover,  in  this  particular  case  the  evidence 
of  his  derivation  of  his  doctrine  from  a  vision  is  pecu- 
liarly strong.  Hardly  any  scholar,  not  under  the 
double  dogmatic  prepossession  of  the  historicity  of  the 
Last  Supper  and  the  improbability  of  revelations,  has 
denied  it.  Among  a  vast  number  who  have  admitted 
the  vision  are  Chrysostom,  Osiander,  Calvin,  Gard- 
ner,^^  Conybeare  ^*  and  Reitzensteln.^^ 

^^  Paul,  English  translation  by  J.  E.  Carpenter,  1908.  According 
to  Schweitzer  the  book  belongs  "not  to  theology  but  to  world-litera- 
ture." 

51  Heitmiiller  in  R.  G.  G.,  "Abendmahl." 

52  Reitzenstein,  Mysterienreligionen  und  Paulus,  passim.  Augustine: 
Contra  Faustum,  xx.  20;  Keating,  2. 

53  Gardner,  Explorat'to  E'vangelica,  second  edition,  p.  453,  gives 
references  for  the  older  scholars.  He  here  withdraws  his  former 
theory  that  Paul  derived  the  Supper  from  the  Eleusinian  Mysteries, 
but  says  that  Paul  was  influenced  by  mystery  concepts  in  general. 

^■^  Myth,  Magic  and  Morals,  251  ff. 
55  Mysterienreligionen,  50  f. 


52  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

In  fact  the  force  of  the  language  is  overwhelming. 
The  emphatic  "I,"  the  positive  statement  that  the 
doctrine  was  received  "from  the  Lord,"  ought  to  be 
decisive.  But  this  is  not  all.  Note  that  Paul  uses  the 
same  word  for  that  which  he  "delivered  over"  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  that  which  was  done  on  the  night  in 
which  the  Lord  was  "delivered  over."  Prof.  W.  B. 
Smith  has  pointed  out  that  this  could  not  mean  "be- 
trayed," as  it  Is  commonly  rendered,  but  must  mean 
"delivered  up"  or  "surrendered."  ^^  This  explanation 
has  now  been  adopted  by  Messrs.  A.  Robertson  and 
A.  Plummer,  in  their  Commentary  on  i  Corinthians.^^ 
They  state  that  the  words  in  question  refer  "perhaps 
chiefly  to  the  Father's  surrender  of  the  Son,  and  the 
Son's  self-sacrifice  may  also  be  included."  Better,  pos- 
sibly, to  say  that  Jesus  was  himself,  as  a  mystic  con- 
cept, delivered  over  to  Paul  and  by  him  so  delivered 
over  to  his  neophytes. 

One  more  point  requires  exegesis  before  we  proceed 
to  the  consideration  of  Paul's  eucharlst  doctrine  in 
general.  The  words  "new  covenant,"  here  used  first 
of  the  cup,  were  probably  borrowed  by  Paul  from  the 
Jewish  Messianic  sect  of  the  Zadokites,^^  who  made  a 
"new  covenant"  at  Damascus,  shortly  before  Paul's 
sojourn  there.  The  Greek  word  hiaO^K-rj  commonly 
means  "testament,"  and  is  so  used  by  the  author  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews.'^  But  as  it  is  the  equivalent 
of  the  Hebrew  berith,  and  was  used  to  translate  this 

^^  Ecce  Deus,  English  edition,  1912,  pp.  303  ff.  German  edition, 
1911. 

^"'International  Critical  Commentary,  p.  243. 

58  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite  V^ord,  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepiffrapha, 
ed.  R.  H.  Charles,  II,  792. 

59  Hebrews,   ix.   15  fiF. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  S3 

word  in  the  Septuagint,*'"  "covenant"  is  almost  cer- 
tainly the  true  meaning  of  the  word  here.^^ 

What  is  Paul's  understanding  of  the  words  "This 
is  my  body?"  It  is  certain  that  he  took  them  liter- 
ally. The  "/loc  est  corpus  meum^^  which  has  been  de- 
cisive for  the  Catholic  church,  and  which,  Luther 
declared,  was  "too  strong"  for  him,  meant  exactly 
what  it  said.  The  reason  why  many  Protestants  have 
maintained  the  contrary  is  simply  that  they  believed  it 
impossible  themselves.  Of  course  it  is  impossible  — 
but  that  does  not  mean  that  Paul  did  not  believe  it. 
Kirsopp  Lake  puts  the  point  aptly:  "Much  of  the  con- 
troversy between  Catholic  and  Protestant  theologians 
has  found  its  center  in  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist, 
and  the  latter  have  appealed  to  primitive  Christianity 
to  support  their  views.  From  their  point  of  view  the 
appeal  fails;  the  Catholic  doctrine  is  much  more  nearly 
primitive  than  the  Protestant.  But  the  Catholic  advo- 
cate in  winning  his  case  has  proved  still  more:  the 
doctrine  which  he  defends  is  not  only  primitive  but 
pre-Christian."  *^^  And  again :  "It  is  necessary  to  insist 
that  the  Catholic  is  much  nearer  to  early  Christianity 
than  the  Protestant."  ^^ 

The  part  of  the  text  stressed  by  those  who  wish  to 
make  the  rite  merely  commemorative  is,  "Do  this  in 
remembrance  of  me."  Let  us  hear  an  expert  on  the 
subject:  "Frankly,"  says  Reitzenstein,^*  "I  can  never 
interpret  these  words  of  a  mere  commemorative  meal, 
such  as  the  Greek  cult  of  the  dead  knows.     The  whole 

^o  E.  g.,  Job  xxxi.  I. 

^1  Dibelius,  Das  Abendmahl,  1911,  76  ff. 

62  Lake,  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  215. 

62  H.  T.  R.,  1914,  p.  429. 

^*  Mysterienreligionen,  51. 


54  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

sacramental  teaching  which  Paul  adds  immediately, 
contradicts  that  interpretation.  The  words  can  be 
better  understood  in  a  mystical  sense  analogous  to  that 
of  an  approximately  contemporary  narrative  in  a  magic 
text  in  which  Osiris  gives  Isis  and  Horus  his  blood  to 
drink  in  a  cup  of  wine,  in  order  that  they  may  not  for- 
get his  death,  but  must  seek  him  in  yearning  plaint, 
until  he  again  becomes  alive  and  unites  with  them." 
This  then  explains  also  the  words  "ye  proclaim  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come."  If  the  eucharist  be  re- 
garded as  analogous  to  the  meals  held  in  memory  of 
dead  friends  by  the  Greeks,  it  must  be  recognized  that 
these  meals,  also,  were  sacrificial."^ 

In  the  same  sense  must  be  read  the  words  that  he 
who  eats  and  drinks  unworthily,  not  discerning  the 
body,  eats  and  drinks  judgment  (or  "damnation")  to 
himself.  The  meaning  is  so  clear  that  Mr.  Scott  is 
able  to  say  that  practically  all  commentators  agree  that 
the  phrase  refers  to  the  failure  on  the  part  of  the  wor- 
shipper to  see  that  the  bread  represented  the  body  of 
Christ.""  "Behind  these  words,"  says  Bousset  quite 
rightly,  "we  catch  glimpses  of  definitely  sacramental 
feeling,  the  belief  in  the  marvelous  virtue  of  sacred 
food,  for  weal  or  woe."  "^  How  perfectly  crude  were 
Paul's  ideas  of  this  magical  effect  is  brought  out  in 
verse  30,  where  he  attributes  the  prevalence  of  sickness 
and  death  among  his  converts  to  the  misuse  of  the 
holy  food.  But  the  benefits  of  the  Christian  mysteries 
did  not  go  the  length  of  guaranteeing  salvation  irre- 
spective of  conduct.     Paul  devotes  the  best  part  of  a 

^5  Lake,  Earlier  Epistles,  214. 

^^  Expositor,  August,  1915,  182  ff.  He  himself,  however,  proposes 
that  the  body  here  means  "fellowship,"  and  "failing  to  discern  it" 
means  being  unbrotherly. 

^^  Die  Schriften  des  Neuen  Testaments,  1906  f,  ed.  J.  Weiss,  ad  loc. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  S5 

chapter  to  the  confutation  of  his  belief  which  had 
evidently  gained  currency  among  the  Corinthians. ®® 
Indeed  some  of  them  turned  their  eucharists  into 
drunken  orgies. ^'^  Whether  the  abominable  sexual 
disorders  among  them  ^^  originated  In  these  debauches, 
cannot  be  determined.  Somewhat  later  the  accusations 
were  made  against  the  Christians  that  they  united 
"Thyestean  banquets  and  Oedipean  intercourse"  at 
their  meetings. ^^ 

Almost  all  that  Paul  says  implies  his  belief  that 
bread  and  wine  were  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Thus 
(i  Cor.  X.  i6)  :  "The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless, 
is  it  not  a  sharing  of  the  blood  of  Christ?  The  bread 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  sharing  of  the  body  of 
Christ?"  "  If  we  ask  how  he  conceived  this,  the 
answer  must  be  that  he  never  raised  the  question  of 
mode,  but  that  he  appears  to  have  assumed  the  reality 
of  his  contention  with  a  literalness  far  surpassing  that 
of  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council.  In  classical  antiquity 
symbol  and  reality  were  not  separated  as  we  separate 
them."  To  Greek  philosophy  words  were  things,  and 
that  was  Its  greatest  weakness.  So  the  personification 
of  bread,  wine,  war  and  love  as  Ceres,  Bacchus,  Mars 
and  Venus  seems  to  us  mere  figure  of  speech,  but  to 
the  ancients  implied  a  good  deal  more.  Even  so  a 
child  will  now  say  of  her  doll  "This  is  my  baby,"  and 

68  I  Cor.  x;  Lake,  Earlier  Epistles,  200  and  213. 

6^  I  Cor.  xi.  21. 

70  I   Cor.  V. 

'^^  R.  G.  G.,  I,  633.     "Nachapostolisches  Zeitalter"  by  Knopf. 

72  Lake's  translation. 

73Bergh  van  Eysinga,  Radical  Vieius  about  the  Neiv  Testament, 
1912,  104.  Ramsay  in  Expository  Times,  XXI,  516.  Harnack  makes 
the  same  remark.  "At  that  time  'symbol'  denoted  a  thing  which,  in 
some  way,  really  is  what  it  signifies."  Dogma,  Eng.,  II,  144.  Cf.  also 
IV,  289,  n.  2,  and  Loofs  in  Realencyclopddie  fiir  protestantische  Theo- 
logie  und  Kirche,  3d  ed.,  I,  58. 


56  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

if  you  insist  that  it  is  not  her  baby,  but  only  the  symbol 
of  one,  will  not  be  convinced,  and  will  even  begin  to 
cry  if  you  press  the  point.  So  to  the  primitive  Chris- 
tian the  breed  and  wine  simply  were  the  body  and 
blood  of  his  Savior;  words  could  not  make  it  plainer 
to  him  than  that.     They  just  were. 

This  belief  of  Paul  implies  the  other  one  held  by  the 
Catholic  Church  that  the  eucharist  is  a  sacrifice.  He 
never  states  this  with  equal  clearness,  but  he  assumes 
it.  Indeed  it  could  hardly  be  otherwise.  It  is  prob- 
able a  priori  because  it  was  so  in  the  mystery  religions 
he  knew.  It  is  probably  a  posteriori  because  it  can  be 
proved  that  other  Christians  of  the  first  century,  e.  g., 
Clement  of  Rome,  so  regarded  it.  But  it  is  not  en- 
tirely a  matter  of  inference.  Conybeare  correctly 
points  out  that  the  germ  of  the  idea,  at  least,  is  found 
in  the  words,  "body,  which  is  for  you,'^  and  (in  the 
Gospels),  "blood,  poured  out  for  you.''''*  Paul 
also  speaks  in  one  breath  of  "keeping  the  feast"  and 
of  "Christ  our  passover  that  hath  been  sacrificed  for 
us."  "  Thus,  further,  he  compares  the  holy  bread 
with  the  sacrifices  of  Israel,  which  gave  the  Jews  "com- 
munion with  the  altar,"  ^^  and  with  the  things  which 
the  heathen  sacrificed  to  devils:  "Ye  cannot,"  says  he, 
"partake  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils; 
ye  cannot  partake  of  the  table  of  the  Lord  and  the 
table  of  devils."  "  In  this  verse,  which  incidentally 
furnishes  invaluable  proof  that  Paul  was  familiar  with 
the  sacrificial  meals  of  the  pagan  mysteries,  the  Cath- 
olics rightly  see  a  clear  support  to  their  doctrine  of  the 

7*  Conybeare,  "Eucharist,"  E.  B. 
'^5  1  Cor.  V.  7. 

76  I   Cor.  X.  17  f. 

77  I  Cor.  X.'  21.  Srawley,  in  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics, 
V,  544- 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  57 

sacrifice  of  the  mass.^^  The  idea  here  is  the  same  as 
that  expressed  in  the  Pseudo-Clementine  Recognitions, 
that  he  who  worships  pagan  gods,  or  tastes  meat  sac- 
rificed to  them  has  communion  with  demons. '^'^  Fur- 
ther the  words  "This  do  in  remembrance  of  me"  had 
the  connotation  in  both  Greek  and  Latin  (TroiciTe, 
facite)  of  "doing  sacrifice."  *° 

Indeed  it  was  inevitable  that  the  communions  should 
be  regarded  as  the  counterpart  of  sacrifices,  both  Jew- 
ish and  pagan. ®^  And  in  the  later  developments  of 
both  religions,  Paul  would  find  prepared  for  him  the 
idea  of  "spiritual  and  bloodless  sacrifices,"  a  phrase 
soon  borrowed  to  denote  the  eucharist.  According  to 
the  Testament  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs  the  angels 
offer  such  sacrifices  to  God.^^  In  the  Hermetic  liter- 
ature the  same  phrase  AoytK^  dvcria  is  applied  to  the  offer- 
ing brought  by  Tat  to  his  father  Hermes. ^^  The  vic- 
tim here  thought  of  was  the  Logos, ^*  just  as  in  similar 
words  about  Isis  the  victim  offered  to  the  goddess  was 
herself.®^  And  this  victim  was  represented  by  the  body 
of  the  worshipper,  a  comparison  also  made  by  Livy  in 
describing  the  Bacchanalia.^*'  All  this  serves  to  illum- 
inate Paul's  injunction  to  the  Romans  (xii.  i )  to  pre- 
sent their  bodies  to  God  as  a  spiritual  sacrifice.  The 
allusion  is  not  directly  to  the  eucharist  but  is  from  a 
circle  of  ideas  closely  analogous  to  that  of  the  sacrifice 

''^  Council  of  Trent,  Mirbt,  242. 
'^^  II,  71.     Kennedy,  273. 

80  Conybeare  in  E.  B.,  "Eucharist."  Renz,  I,  152.  Cajetan,  quoted 
below;  Stone  I,  9.     The  same  double  meaning  is  in  Hebrew  ntJ'y. 

81  Conybeare,  Myths,  Morals  and  Magic,  252. 

82  Test.  Levi,  III,  6. 

^^  Corpus  Hermeticum,  XIII.  18;  Reitzenstein,  Mysterienreligionen, 
35.   88. 
84  Ibid. 

^^  Ibid.,  p.  91. 
86  Livy,  XXXIX,  10,  7 ;  Reitzenstein,  p.  88. 


58  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

of  the  communion.  It  Is  expressed  more  clearly  in  i 
Peter  ii.  5. 

Other  passages  in  the  Pauline  epistles  "  doubtless 
have  the  eucharistic  doctrine  as  a  background,  but  they 
are  too  vague,  apart  from  one  in  Colossians,  to  be  dis- 
cussed presently,  to  be  of  importance  for  our  present 
purpose. 

It  will  be  objected  that  if  Paul  really  introduced  a 
new  and  pagan  rite  into  Christianity,  it  would  have 
been  withstood  violently  by  the  Jewish  Christians  and 
especially  by  the  previous  apostles.^®  To  this  the 
answer  is  that  he  really  was  so  opposed  and  on  this 
very  point.  Since  F.  C.  Baur,^^  few  church  historians 
have  realized  the  tremendous  strain  that  existed  be- 
tween the  Jerusalem  community  and  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.  It  became  so  virulent  that  when  Mark  wrote 
his  gospel,  entirely  along  Pauline  lines,^°  he  could  find 
scarcely  anything  to  say  about  Peter  save  that  he  had 
denied  his  Lord  and  that  Christ  had  called  him  Satan.^^ 
When,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Jewish  faction  expressed 
itself,  it  was  to  brand  Paul  as  "a  false  apostle  and  a 
liar,"  ®^  and,  "Balaam,  who  taught  the  children  of 
Israel  to  eat  things  sacrificed  to  idols  and  to  commit 

8'^  I  Cor.  xii.  13;  Galatians  iii.  6-26;  Romans  iv.  25  to  v.  9 ;  Eph. 
ii.  On  these  see  B.  W.  Bacon  in  Harvard  Theological  Revieiv,  1915, 
505  ff.  He  finds  not  only  the  Pauline  epistles  but  the  Gospels  "polar- 
ized" about  the  two  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  supper. 

*8  Schweitzer,  Paulinische  Forschung,  Einleitung. 

^^  Paul,  English  translation,  1876,  Introduction  and  Part  I,  passim. 
On  this,  Schweitzer,  Paulinische  Forschung,  10  and  194.  Cf.  further, 
Hibbert,  1913,  737  ff. 

9*>  On  Mark's  Paulinism,  Loisy,  Les  evangiles  synoptiques,  I,  25, 
116;  B.  W.  Bacon,  The  Beginnings  of  the  Gospel  Story,  1909,  pp. 
XXV  ff.  Harnack,  Sayings  of  Jesus,  248.  The  theory,  originating  with 
Papias,  that  Mark  represents  Peter,  has  been  exploded. 

81  Mark  viii.   31-34;  xiv.  66-72. 

®2  Apocalypse  ii.  2 ;  the  allusion  to  Paul  has  been  recognized  by 
Renan  and  many  others. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  59 

fornication."  ^^  Not  only  the  Jews  but  the  disciples  of 
John  at  Ephesus  and  Damascus  anathematized  him  as 
the  perverter  of  their  law,  "the  man  of  scoffing."  ^* 
That  the  great  schism  in  the  early  church  does  not 
occupy  a  still  more  important  place  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  due  partly  to  the  fact  that  Peter  and  Paul  ap- 
parently divided  the  field  into  two  spheres  of  influence, 
the  Jerusalem  apostles  agreeing,  for  the  sake  of  a 
tribute,  to  allow  Paul  to  preach  what  he  wished  to  the 
Gentiles.^^  It  is  also  due  in  part  to  the  complete 
triumph,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  of  the 
Pauline  faction  and  to  the  desire  of  irenic  historians 
like  Luke  to  smooth  everything  over  and  make  all  ap- 
pear according  to  Paul's  gospel  from  the  beginning.^^ 

As  to  the  eucharist,  though  there  was  opposition,  its 
adoption  was  made  easier  to  the  Jewish  Christians  by 
the  fact  that  they  already  had  a  common  meal  with 
which  it  was  soon  identified.  This  "love-feast,"  as  we 
know  from  Jude,  Tertullian,  and  other  sources,  con- 
tinued to  the  second  century  at  least."  The  difference 
of  opinion  among  scholars  as  to  whether  it  was  identi- 
cal with  or  different  from  the  eucharist,  is  doubtless 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  two,  at  first  distinct,  were  grad- 
ually merged.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  purely  Jewish 
Christian  literature,  so  far  as  it  has  survived  in  the 
New  Testament  —  namely  Q,  James,  Jude,  2  Peter, 
and  the  Apocalypse  —  says  nothing  of  the  great  rite 
of  the  Gentile  Church.     Nor  —  and  this  is  very  signi- 

^^  Apocalypse  ii.  14.  The  reference  is  to  the  doctrine  of  i  Cor.  x. 
Spiritual  fornication,  or  idolatry,  is  meant. 

^*  In  the  recently  discovered  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite  Work,  cf. 
G.  Margoliouth  in  Expositor,  Dec.  1911  and  March  1912. 

^5  Galatians  ii.  7.  Conybeare,  Myth,  Magic  and  Morals,  11.  Hib- 
bert,  1913,  pp.  748  fl. 

^^  Hibbert,  -j^-j.     Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  158  f. 

9^  Conybeare,  "Agape''  in  Encyclopedia  Brit. 


6o  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

ficant  ^«  —  does  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  one  of  the 
earliest  Roman  Christian  writings.  Little  later  the 
Didache,^^  in  giving  an  account  of  the  eucharist,  care- 
fully refrains  from  speaking  of  the  Last  Supper,  of 
the  body  or  blood  or  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross.  In- 
stead of  the  words  of  institution,  it  recommends  a 
simple  prayer  connecting  the  cup  with  the  "vine  of 
David." 

A  somewhat  stronger  opposition  is  probably  seen  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  O.  Holtzmann  has  re- 
cently pointed  out  in  this  book  a  polemic  against  the 
eucharist.'°°  Other  scholars  "'  have  seen  reference  to 
the  eucharist  without  polemic,  and  still  others  ^^^  have 
denied  that  there  are  any  references  at  all.  The 
verses  which  Holtzmann  relies  on  are  xiii.  9  f :  "Be  not 
carried  away  by  diverse  and  strange  teachings:  for  it 
is  good  that  the  heart  be  stablished  by  grace,  not  by 
foods  wherein  they  that  occupied  themselves  were  not 
profited.  We  have  an  altar  of  which  they  have  no 
right  to  eat  which  serve  the  tabernacle."  This  seems 
to  agree  well  with  the  interpretation  of  Holtzmann, 
and  it  is  on  the  whole  supported  by  other  verses  in  the 
epistle.  Thus  in  vi.  2,  the  writer  speaks  of  baptism 
and  laying  on  of  hands  but  omits  the  eucharist.  More 
striking  is  ix.  9 :  "gifts  and  sacrifices  which  cannot,  as 
touching  the  conscience,  make  the  worshiper  perfect, 
being  only,  with  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  wash- 
ings, carnal  ordinances."  The  reference  is,  of  course, 
to  the  old  dispensation,  but  through  it  the  author  seems 

^^  Reville,  Revue  de  I'histoire  des  religions,  LVI,  26. 
^9  IX,  10;  Gardner,  Exploratio  Evan.,  458;  Religious  Experience  of 
Paul,  119,  etc. 

^"0  Z.  N.  T.  fV.,  1909,  251-60,  against  him,  Goguel,  219. 

101  Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  V.  543. 

102  Lambert,  391. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  6i 

to  hit  at  the  new  ceremonialism.  Again,  the  insistence 
in  X,  12  that  Jesus  was  sacrificed  once  only  for  our  sins 
seems  to  read  almost  like  a  Protestant  polemic  against 
the  repeated  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  The  Paulinists  also 
seem  to  be  scored  in  the  verse  against  those  who  have 
counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant  a  common  thing 
(xii.  29).  The  verse  "forget  not  to  do  good  and  to 
communicate,"  refers,  naturally,  not  to  communion  but 
to  giving  to  the  poor,  as  in  Romans  xv.  26,  2  Cor. 
ix.   13. 

One  other  passage  in  Paul  has  been  left  for  discus- 
sion until  now,  because  it  seems  to  refer  to  those  who 
opposed  his  eucharist  doctrine.  I  mean  Col.  ii.  16  f: 
"Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  food  or  in  drink, 
or  in  respect  to  a  feast  day  or  a  new  moon  or  a  sab- 
bath day:  which  are  but  a  shadow  of  things  to  come; 
but  the  body  is  Christ's." 

The  Synoptic  gospels  adopt  the  Pauline  view  entire. 
I  will  spare  my  reader  the  exhibition  of  the  texts  re- 
lating to  the  Last  Supper  in  parallel  columns,  and  the 
long  comparison  of  them,  with  the  purpose  of  discov- 
ering what  is  historic  or  original  in  them.  All  such 
attempts  have  definitely  failed.  Those  who  favor 
Mark  and  those  who  prefer  Luke,^*'^  cannot  show  that 
there  is  anything  but  Paul  in  the  lesson  of  the  narra- 
tives. The  words  attributed  to  Jesus,  are,  says  Loisy, 
"the  doctrine  of  Paul  and  are  simply  incomprehensi- 
ble as  addressed  by  Jesus  to  his  disciples  on  the  day  of 
his  death."  "*  Mark  did  not  need  to  copy  them  from 
I  Corinthians,  for  the  usage  had  become  established 
at  Rome  when  he  wrote.     His  omission  of  the  Pauline 

103  As  Heitrauller,  and  Bacon,  H.  T.  R.,  V,  322  S. 
10*  L'evangile  selon  Marc,  403. 


62  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

words  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me"  has  no  signifi- 
cance, for  they  seemed  to  Mark  implied,  or,  as  Ger- 
mans would  say,  selbstverstdndlich.  Schweitzer  and 
others  have  seen  in  the  verse  added  by  Mark,  in  which 
Jesus  says  that  he  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the 
vine  until  he  shall  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 
a  genuine  reminiscence.  This,  however,  is  untenable; 
for  the  idea  here  is  also  Pauline,  closely  similar  to  that 
of  I  Cor,  xi.  26. 

There  are  at  least  three  other  allusions  to  the  eu- 
charist  in  Mark  besides  the  account  of  its  institution. 
The  first  of  these  of  which  I  shall  speak  is  positive 
proof  that  words  about  the  sacrament  could  be  attri- 
buted to  Jesus,  though  he  could  not  possibly  have  spok- 
en them.  When  the  sons  of  Zebedee  asked  for  the  chief 
places  in  Christ's  kingdom,  he  replied  (x.  38).  "Can 
ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of  and  be  baptized  with 
the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with?"  This  joining 
of  the  cup  and  baptism  is  surely  a  figurative  allusion 
to  the  two  Christian  sacraments.  But  as  the  content 
of  the  pericope  is  a  prophecy  of  the  death  of  James 
and  John,  a  vaticinium  ex  evenhi,  the  allusion  to  the 
eucharist  placed  in  Jesus's  mouth  is  also  certainly  later 
than  his  time. 

From  the  earliest  days  it  has  been  recognized  that 
the  miraculous  feeding  of  the  multitudes  is  a  symbol  of 
the  spiritual  nourishment  of  mankind  by  the  commun- 
ion bread.  John,  the  first  commentator  on  the  Synop- 
tics, so  took  it,  and  joined  to  it  his  version  of  the 
sacramental  words  attributed  to  Christ."^  How  care- 
fully the  symbolism  is  carried  out  is  shown  in  one  nar- 

i<>5  Loisy,  L'evangile  selon  Marc,  191  flF;  225  flr,  to  Mark  vi.  32  ff  and 
viii.  I  flF.     Cf,  John  vi. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  63 

rative  of  Mark  by  the  seating  of  the  people  in  groups, 
as  was  done  in  the  early  church,  and  in  his  other  narra- 
tive by  the  instructions  to  pick  up  the  fragments.  This 
may  be  compared  with  the  meticulous  instructions  given 
by  Tertullian,"^  and  followed  in  the  Roman  Church 
to-day,  to  let  none  of  the  precious  body  of  the  Lord 
be  left  on  the  floor,  if  dropped. 

The  use  of  fish  in  connection  with  the  eucharist  at 
Rome  where  Mark  wrote  has  been  noticed  above.  The 
reason  for  his  repetition  of  substantially  the  same  mira- 
cle is  probably  to  be  found  in  his  use  of  sources,  though 
it  has  been  conjectured  that  he  wished  to  symbolize  the 
callings  of  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  respectively. 

Matthew  and  Luke  add  nothing  on  this  subject  to  Q 
and  Mark.  In  Luke,  however,  we  have  an  interesting 
textual  problem  on  which  I  believe  I  can  throw  light. 
Some  manuscripts,^**^  headed  by  D,  omit  the  words 
(xxii.  i9b-2o)  :  "given  for  you.  Do  this  in  remem- 
brance of  me.  And  in  like  manner  the  cup,  after  sup- 
per, saying.  This  cup  is  the  covenant  in  my  blood, 
which  is  poured  out  for  you."  The  textual  evidence 
together  with  "the  suspicious  resemblance  of  this  pas- 
sage to  I  Corinthians"  led  Westcott  and  Hort  to 
bracket  it  as  an  interpolation.  The  words  are  evident- 
ly taken  from  Paul,  but  as  It  is  just  as  possible  that 
Luke  borrowed  them  as  that  his  copyist  did,  and  as 
they  are  present  in  most  of  the  decisive  authorities, 
they  are  retained  by  Von  Soden  and  regarded  as  gen- 
uine by  Jullcher,  Cremer,  Clemen,  Schweitzer,  Lam- 
bert, and  others.^"®     If,  then,  they  were  in  the  original, 

106  Dg  corona  mil.,  3. 

1°'^  Besides  D,  the  old  African  and  Italic  Latin  versions  omit  them, 
and  Tatian  changes  the  order  of  words. 
108  Lambert,  245. 


64  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

why  does  the  Codez  Bezae  (D)  omit  them?  The 
answer  is  this:  The  reviser  of  D  (or  rather,  prob- 
ably the  scribe  of  an  earher  manuscript  he  copies),  was 
from  Asia  Minor,^*'^  probably  from  Ephesus,  at  which 
place  there  was  the  strongest  opposition  both  to  Paul 
and  to  his  eucharistic  doctrine.  The  Disciples  of  John 
there,  as  is  proved  by  the  Odes  of  Solomon  ""  and  the 
Johannine  writings,  presently  to  be  discussed,  refused 
to  take  the  eucharist  bread  or  to  recognize  it  as  the 
flesh  of  Christ.  Even  as  late  as  the  second  century  the 
Docetae  of  Asia  Minor,  probably  an  offshoot  of  the 
Johannites,  took  the  same  position."^  Now  the  re- 
viser of  the  manuscript  represented  by  D  and  the 
Latins  did  not  dare  to  omit  the  story  of  the  institution 
as  a  whole,  but  he  did  delete  the  words  implying  a 
sacrifice  and  the  command  to  repeat.  Like  the  Fourth 
Evangelist  later  he  hoped  thus  to  keep  the  spiritual 
lesson  and  to  avoid  the  ritual  repetition. 

Acts  occasionally  mentions  the  celebration  of  the 
Supper  (ii.  42;  xx.  7),  but  as  it  adds  nothing  to  our 
knowledge,  save  to  show  that  it  and  Paul's  interpreta- 
tion of  it  were  thoroughly  established  in  the  commun- 
ity and  at  the  late  date  at  which  Luke  wrote,  the  book 
need  not  be  further  noticed. 

Of  the  New  Testament  writings  there  remain  to  be 
discussed  only  the  Gospel  and  First  Epistle  of  John. 
On  their  teaching  the  most  extraordinary  diversity  of 
opinion  has  prevailed.  Some  scholars  have  denied 
that  the  Gospel  refers  to  the  eucharist  at  all.  Others 
have  seen  in  it  only  an  intensification  and  emphasis  of 

109  Ramsay,  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  151  ff. 
11"  Preserved   Smith,   "The  Odes  of  Solomon   and  the   Disciples  of 
John,"  Monist,  April  1915,  pp.  186  f. 
Ill  Ignatius  ad  Smyrn.,  6. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  6s 

the   sacramental   theory   of   Paul.      Many   think   that 
John   ''spiritualizes"  Paul's  teaching,  though  without 
saying  definitely  how.    The  data  are  these :   ( i )  John 
omits  the  account  of  the  Last  Supper  and  substitutes 
for  it  foot-washing,  with  a  probable  allusion  to  bap- 
tism. (2)  In  the  sixth  chapter  he  joins  to  the  narrative 
of  the  miraculous  feeding  a  long  discourse  of  Jesus  on 
the  necessity  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood: 
"I  am  the  bread  of  life.     He  who  cometh  unto  me 
shall  never  hunger  and  he  who  believeth  on  me  shall 
never  thirst."      "I  am  the  living  bread  coming  down 
from  heaven.     If  any  one  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall 
live  forever.     For  the  bread  which  I  shall  give  him  is 
my  flesh  which  is  for  the  life  of  the  world.     Then  the 
Jews  contended  with  one  another  saying,  How  can  this 
man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat?     Then  said  Jesus  to 
them.  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  if  ye  eat  not  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink  not  his  blood,  ye 
have  not  life  in  yourselves.     The  feeder  on  my  flesh 
and  the  drinker  of  my  blood  hath  life  eternal,  and  I 
shall  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day.     For  my  flesh  is  true 
nourishment  and  my  blood  is  true  drink.     The  feeder 
on  my  flesh  and  the  drinker  of  my  blood  remaineth  in 
me  and  I  in  him."  Knowing  the  methods  of  the  Fourth 
Evangelist,  his  total  independence  of  historical  tradition 
and  his  custom  of  writing  into  the  narrative  the  lessons 
he  thoughbieeded  in  his  own  day,  it  is  easy  to  see  in  this 
debate,  nowhere  recorded  in  the  Synoptics,  the  contra- 
versy  actually  in  process  at  Ephesus,  between  the  Paul- 
me  Christians  on  one  side  and  the  Jewish  and  Baptist 
parties  in  the  Church  on  the  other.      (3)  It  is  possible 
that  there  is  some  allusion  to  the  eucharist  in  the  story 
of  the  wedding  at  Cana,  but,  if  so,  it  is  vague  and  not 


66  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

to  our  purpose."^  The  water  and  the  blood  issuing 
from  Jesus's  side  at  the  passion  have  been  interpreted 
as  referring  to  the  two  sacraments.  It  is  quite  possible 
that  the  parable  of  the  true  vine  (John  xv.  iff)  situat- 
ed as  it  is  in  Jesus's  last  discourse  to  the  disciples,  is 
an  allusion  to  the  eucharist  cup,  suggested  by  Mark 
xiv.  25.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  prayer  of  consecra- 
tion in  the  Didache  connects  the  cup  with  the  vine  of 
David. 

How  shall  we  interpret  these  seemingly  conflicting 
data?  Why  did  John  refuse  to  regard  the  Last  Sup- 
per as  historical,  while  embodying  the  doctrine  of  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  Jesus  in  such  strong  language?  Did 
he  omit  the  Last  Supper  simply  as  he  omitted  the  bap- 
tism of  Jesus  and  as  he  says  that  the  master  baptised 
not,  but  his  disciples,  as  though  his  Christ  were  superior 
to  sacramental  acts?"'  Surely  not.  His  Jesus,  who 
weeps  and  suffers  hunger  and  washes  his  disciples'  feet, 
is  not  above  eating  with  them  a  ritual  meal.  Oj  does 
he  transpose  the  institution  of  the  eucharist  to  the  ear- 
lier account  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes  to  show 
that  Jesus's  eating  with  his  disciples  was  no  new  thing 
at  his  death,  but  that  his  every  meal  with  them  was 
consecrated?  This  view"*  also  seems  insuflicient,  and 
at  variance  with  certain  verses  in  the  discourse  quoted 
above  (John  vi). 

The  solution  of  the  enigma,  I  am  persuaded,  will  be 
found  in  the  situation  at  Ephesus  where  the  evangelist 

112  John  ii.  1  ff.  His  sources  were  Mark  ii.  18-22;  Matt.  xxii.  1-14; 
Luke  xiv.  15-24,  and  IV  Ezra  X.  Similar  tales  were  told  of  Dionysus 
turning  water  into  wine  at  his  epiphany.  This  pericope  was  in  an- 
cient rituals  a  lesson  for  Epiphany.     Bacon,  H.  T.  R.,  1915,  p.  115. 

113  John  iv.  2.  Schweitzer  advances  this  view,  Paulinische  For- 
schung,  157  ff. 

11*  Bacon,  434  f,  maintains  it. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  67 

wrote.  There,  as  we  know  (Acts  xviii.  19  ff)  was  a 
church  founded  by  Paul,  in  which,  naturally^  the  eu- 
charist  would  be  celebrated.  But  there  was  also  a 
powerful  element  in  the  church  drawn  from  the  Dis- 
ciples of  John,"^  who  had  no  eucharist,  and  who  would 
doubtless  oppose  it,  just  as  the  Bohemian  Brethren 
absorbed  in  Protestantism  for  long  kept  their  own  dis- 
tinctive tenets.  But  we  have  already  proved  from 
Hebrews,  from  Colossians  and  from  the  D  recension 
of  Luke  xxii,,  that  there  was  opposition  to  the  euchar- 
ist, and  especially  at  Ephesus.  Now,  though  the 
sources  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  many  —  the  Synop- 
tics, the  Apocalypse,  Philo,  the  Hermetic  literature, 
and  of  course  the  Jewish  scriptures  —  the  ones  from 
which  he  drew  most  heavily  for  his  doctrine  were  the 
Pauline  epistles  and  Odes  of  Solomon,""  these  latter 
written  at  Ephesus  by  the  Disciples  of  John,  and  con- 
sequently full  of  allusions  to  baptism,  but  with  none 
to  the  eucharist.  Unhampered  as  he  was  by  any  trace 
of  independent  tradition, "'^  he  felt  free  to  deal  with  the 
facts  as  he  liked.  As  a  follower  of  Paul  he  wished  to 
preserve  and  emphasize  the  great  spiritual  lesson  which 
he  found  in  the  words  about  eating  the  flesh  and  drink- 
ing the  blood  of  Jesus.  On  the  other  hand  he  could  not 
ignore  the  Disciples  of  John  and  their  heirs,  supported 
as  they  were  by  Jewish  Christians,  who  abominated  the 
supper  as  a  heathen  rite.  Whether  the  evangelist 
had  once  himself  been  a   disciple  of  the   Baptist  re- 

^^5  Acts,  xix.  I  flF.  That  the  Disciples  would  have  no  eucharist  is 
obvious  and  is  also  proved  by  the  Odes  of  Solomon.  Monist,  April, 
1915,   p.    186  f. 

lis  So  Harnack.     Monist,  1915,  pp.  171  ff. 

^^^  This  fact,  still  disputed,  has  been  pretty  well  established  by 
Loisy,  Bacon   and  others. 


^8  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

mains  uncertaln/^^  but  that  he  did  write  with  them 
constantly  in  his  eye  has  long  been  recognized."^  He 
therefore  rejected  the  founding  of  the  eucharist,  and 
substituted  for  it  a  washing  reminiscent  of  the  one  sac- 
rament universally  accepted,  while  at  the  same  time 
conserving  the  lesson  that  Jesus  is  the  bread  of  life. 
Not  without  reason  does  his  language  hark  back  to  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  to  the  Apocrypha  and  to  Philo,^^" 
In  showing  that  the  Logos  is  the  true  nourishment  of 
the  soul.  "Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man 
and  drink  his  blood,"  says  he,  "ye  have  no  life  in  you." 
By  this  he  would  not  have  understood  in  the  old,  lit- 
eral way:  "It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth;  the  flesh 
profiteth  nothing.  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you, 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  life"   (John  vi  6^)  ■ 

How  then  shall  we  explain  the  emphasis  on  the 
"water  and  the  blood,"  i.  e.,  the  sacraments  of  bap- 
tism and  the  eucharist,  in  John  xix.  34  and  i  John  v. 
6?  It  has  been  proposed  to  regard  the  "blood"  here 
simply  as  an  allusion  to  the  passion.  It  Is  probable 
that  the  Docetae,^^^  at  whom  these  verses  may  have 
been  aimed,  denied  the  passion,  and  It  has  been  shown 
that  it  would  be  most  appropriate  to  connect  the  blood 
of  martyrdom  with  the  water  of  baptism,  for  the  one 
might  well  follow  the  other.^'^  Such  an  explanation 
would  obviate  all  difl'iculties,  but  I  am  Inclined,  never- 

^18  Gardner,  Ephesian  Gospel,  87  f. 

^^9  Baldensperger,  Der  Prolog  zum  vierten  Evangelium,  1897; 
Dibelius,  Johannes  der  Tdufer,  191 1 ;  B.  W.  Bacon,  Fourth  Gospel,  290, 

120  Psalm  Ixxviii.  4;  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  29;  Pfleiderer,  Primitive 
Christianity,  1906  flF,  IV,  231  ff.  Probably  also  to  the  supersubstantial 
bread  of  the  Lord's  prayer. 

121  This  explanation  offered  by  Bacon. 

122  So  R.  Winterbotham  in  Expositor,  1911,  62  ff,  and  J.  Denney, 
ibid.,  1908,  416  ff.  The  latter  regards  the  "blood"  as  referring  pri- 
marily to  the  passion  and  martyrdom,  secondarily  to  the  eucharist. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  69 

theless,  to  see  at  least  a  secondary  allusion  to  the  tu- 
charist  in  the  "blood."  If  this  is  true  there  is  certainly 
a  contrast  to  the  teaching  of  the  earlier  chapters  of 
the  gospel.  It  can  be  instantly  seen  by  comparing 
John  iii.  5  with  i  John  v.  6.  The  first  passage  reads : 
"Except  a  man  be  born  by  water  and  the  spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  second: 
"This  is  he  that  cometh  by  water  and  blood  and  spirit, 
Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  Because  these  three  are  wit- 
nesses, the  spirit  and  the  water  and  the  blood."  In 
the  first  chapter  of  the  gospel,  then,  the  spirit  and 
baptism  were  all  that  was  necessary,  but  in  the  epistle 
and  in  the  later,  probably  subsequently  added,  verse 
in  the  gospel,  the  eucharist  is  joined  with  them  as  one 
of  the  means  of  salvation.  There  are  unusually  strong 
reasons  for  claiming  that  this  verse  is  subsequently 
added.  Bacon, ^^^  among  other  authorities,  recognizes 
that  the  whole  of  chapter  xxi,  and  that  John  xix.  35 
are  added  by  a  later  editor.  The  evidence  for  the  last 
verse  is  overwhelming;  it  reads:  "And  he  that  hath 
seen  hath  borne  witness,  and  his  witness  is  true,  and 
that  man  knoweth  he  speaketh  the  truth  that  ye  may 
believe."  The  introduction  without  antecedent  of 
"that  man,"  iK€lvo<;,  Hie,  would  be  simply  incomprehen- 
sible in  the  original  narrative.  The  word  points  to 
the  author  of  the  gospel  as  seen  by  some  one  else.  The 
solemn  asseveration,  as  to  a  new  and  disputed  fact, 
also  strongly  indicates  editorial  revision.  Now  it  is 
absurd  to  regard  the  asseveration,  and  that  alone,  as 
interpolated.  Something  else  must  have  been  intro- 
duced with  it,  something  to  which  the  asseveration  ap- 
plies, and  this  can  only  be  the  previous  verse  about  the 

123  p.     191. 


70  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

water  and  the  blood.  This,  then,  was  added  by  the 
editor,  who  introduced  it  from  the  epistle.  If  we 
regard  the  gospel  and  the  epistle  as  by  the  same  hand, 
we  are  then  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  reconciling 
the  omission  of  the  eucharist  in  one  to  its  recognition 
in  the  other  document.  The  true  explanation  has  been 
suggested  by  Percy  Gardner:  ^^*  "In  old  age,  when  he 
wrote  the  epistle,  the  Evangelist  seems  to  have  relied, 
as  was  natural  to  a  man  of  failing  powers,  somewhat 
more  on  the  visible  rites  of  the  church."  It  is  re- 
markable that  we  find  exactly  such  a  change  in  Luther's 
dogma,  and  that  completed  in  ten  short  years.  In 
1520  he  put  the  essence  (res)  of  the  sacrament  in  the 
Word,  and  stated  that  the  actual  rite  was  not  neces- 
sary to  salvation;  in  1530  he  was  ready  to  affirm  that 
the  real  essence  (res)  of  the  sacrament  was  in  the 
elements,  and  that  participation  in  them  was  absolutely 
indispensable  to  secure  their  benefits.  So  with  the 
Evangelist;  in  his  younger  years  the  spiritual  lesson 
was  all  important;  later,  as  the  rite  became  more  firm- 
ly established  and  as  he  became  more  ecclesiastical, 
he  accepted  the  communion  as  essential. 

Most  of  the  Gnostic  sects  known  to  us  adopted 
the  eucharist,  with  its  ideas  of  immolation  and  the- 
ophagy.^^^  Many  of  their  dogmas  were  probably 
founded  directly  on  mystery  cults  with  which  they 
were  connected  in  pre-Christian  times.  How  easily 
pagan  ideas  amalgamated  with  Christian  is  seen  in  the 
eucharistic  prayer  in  the  Acts  of  Thomas:  ^^®  "Come, 
communion  of  the  male     .     .     T    Come  thou  that  dis- 

^^^Ephesian   Gospel,  213. 

125  A  good  account  of  their  dogmas  in  W.  M.  Groton,  pp.  35  flF. 

126  Chaps,  xlix  and  1 ;  Pick,  Apocryphal  Acts,  268  f. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  71 

closest  secrets  and  makest  manifest  the  mysteries. 
Come  and  communicate  with  us  in  thy  euchar- 
ist."  Here  emerge  the  two  primitive  conceptions  of 
the  mysteries  and  of  communion  with  the  divine  after 
the  manner  of  sex. 

Clement  of  Rome  in  the  first  century  calls  the  com- 
munion an  offering  and  a  sacrifice. ^^^  By  making  it  the 
"liturgy"  par  excellence  of  the  church,  he  puts  it  in 
the  place  of  the  highest  form  of  divine  worship  which 
it  has  ever  since  held  in  the  Roman  church. 

Ignatius  also  thinks  of  it  as  a  sacrifice,  and  as 
charged  with  a  magical  quality  for  keeping  both  body 
and  soul  deathless.  "The  bread,"  says  he,  "is  the 
medicine  of  immortality,  the  antidote  preserving  us 
that  we  should  not  die,  but  live  forever  in  Jesus 
Christ."  ^^^  This  is  but  a  literal  interpretation  of 
John's  teaching  by  a  younger  contemporary.  Ignatius 
also  states  plainly  that  the  body  is  the  same  as  that 
which  suffered  on  the  cross. ^^^ 

According  to  Justin  Martyr,  "God,  anticipating  all 
the  sacrifices  offered  in  his  name  by  the  command  of 
Jesus  Christ,  namely  the  eucharist  of  the  bread  and 
the  cup,  which  are  offered  by  Christians  in  all  places 
throughout  the  world,  testified  that  they  are  well-pleas- 
ing unto  him."  ^^**  He  also  speaks  of  the  eucharist  as 
becoming  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  through  the 
prayer  of  the  Logos.  To  him  also  it  is  a  memorial  of 
"the  passion  and  a  magical  charm  for  giving  men  im- 

127  Ad  Cor.  40,  44;  cf.  36.  Srawley,  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and 
Ethics,  V,  546;  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  IX,  868;  Goguel,  224;  Lam- 
bert, 412. 

128^^  Eph.,  20.     Srawley,  546. 

129  Ad  Smyr.,  6 ;  cf.  Ad  Rom.,  7. 

'^^^  Dialogue  ivith  Trypho,  iij.  First  Apology,  66,  6j.  Srawley, 
547;  Lambert  415. 


72  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

mortality.  His  comparison  of  this  sacrament  with  that 
of  MIthra  has  already  been  mentioned.  In  this  con- 
nection It  Is  Interesting  to  note  that  with  him  and  with 
a  number  of  other  early  Christians,  the  elements  were 
not  bread  and  wine  but  bread  and  water. ^"  Paul 
speaks  only  of  the  "cup,"  without  denoting  its  con- 
tents,, but  both  he  and  the  gospels  imply  that  it  was 
wlne.^^^ 

It  was  the  Insistence  on  the  element  of  sacrifice  that 
gave  rise  to  the  rumors  In  the  Roman  world  of  "Thyes- 
tean  banquets."  Early  In  the  second  century  Pliny  "^ 
felt  it  necessary  to  Inform  Trajan  that  the  meal  par- 
taken of  by  the  Christians  was  of  harmless  and  ordi- 
nary food,  and  that  he  found  nothing  criminal  in  It 
but  only  a  perverse  and  excessive  superstition.  In  the 
same  letter  he  uses  the  word  sacramentum  of  the  morn- 
ing service,  but  does  not  connect  It  with  the  supper 
which  was  eaten  later  in  the  day.  The  word,  which  as 
we  have  seen  was  already  used  of  the  rites  of  Bacchus 
and  Isis,  became  the  regular  translation  of  the  Greek 
"mysterium,"  the  initiation  into  holy  secrets  and  mag- 
ical practices  characteristic  of  all  the  "mystery-relig- 
ions," including  Christianity.  The  word  is  found  in 
the  Septuagint  only  In  the  latest  books,  Daniel  and 
the  Apocrypha,  when  the  Hellenization  of  the  Jews 
was  well  under  way. 

Though  Clement  of  Alexandria  does  not  emphasize 
the  sacrificial  aspect  of  the  eucharlst,  he  Is  familiar 
with  the  conception  of  sacrifice  as  originally  a  feast 
upon  a  •victim,  and  neither  the  idea  of  the  real  pres- 

131  Harnack,  Brot  und  Wasser.     T.  &  U.,  VII,  2,  1891. 

132  X  Cor.  xi.  21 ;  Mark  xiv.  25  etc. 

133  Ep.,  96. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  73 

ence  nor  that  of  transubstantiation  are  foreign  to  his 
thought."* 

Irenaeus  calls  the  bread  and  wine  an  offering  to  God 
the  Father  of  the  body  and  blood  of  his  Son,  and  says 
that  it  is  efficacious  for  the  body  as  well  as  for  the 
soul.  When  consecrated,  the  bread  is  no  longer  bread 
but  of  two  elements,  a  heavenly  and  an  earthly,  and 
prepares  our  bodies  for  the  resurrection.  He  com- 
pares it  to  the  sacrifices  of  the  Jews  to  its  advantage, 
as  being  offered  by  children,  not  servants."^ 

As  has  been  shown,  the  fundamental  idea  in  eating 
the  God  was  to  become  like  him.  This  was  carried 
so  far  in  the  pagan  religions,  that  the  initiates  not  only 
imitated  what  the  god  was  fabled  to  have  done,  but 
were  actually  called  by  his  name.  The  adorer  of 
Bacchus  became  a  Bacchus;  the  follower  of  Attis  was 
called  Attis. "°  This  idea  could  not  be  better  ex- 
pressed than  it  was  by  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  who,  in  his 
Fourth  Mystagogic  Catechism  teaches :  "By  taking  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  you  become  one  body  and 
blood  with  him.  For  thus  we  become  Christ-bearers 
(xpi'f^Tofopoi)  by  his  body  and  blood  being  digested  into 
our  members."  "^  The  language  of  ritual  again  be- 
came the  mother  of  legend,  and  the  myth  of  St.  Chris- 
topher was  born. 

The  "highest"  doctrine  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  com- 
munion is  found  in  Cyprian  near  the  middle  of  the 
third  century.  "The  priest,"  says  he,  "imitates  what 
Christ  did,  and  offers  then  in  the  church  of  God  the 

^3*  Tollington,   Clement  of  Alexandria,   1914,  II,    155. 

135  Adv.  Haer.,  IV.  xviii,  4.  De  corpore  et  sanguine,  V,  ii,  2. 
Srawley,  547. 

136  As  in  Catullus's  famous  poem  of  that  name. 
^37  Quoted,   Dietrich,    107. 


74  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Father  a  true  and  complete  sacrifice."  ^^®  and  again: 
"The  passion  of  the  Lord  is  the  sacrifice  we  offer."  ^^^ 

Cyprian's  idea  of  the  effect  of  the  magic  food  was 
that  of  the  savage  medicine-man.  He  tells  in  one 
place  of  a  little  girl  who  had  eaten  some  meat  sacrificed 
to  idols  and  thus  became  possessed  by  devils.  When 
she  came  to  the  Lord's  table,  she  accordingly  refused 
the  consecrated  cup  and  fell  into  fits."°  A  similar 
magical  effect  Is  attributed  to  the  host  by  the  Acts  of 
Thomas."^  A  youth  who  had  murdered  his  mistress 
partook  of  the  eucharist  and  immediately  his  hand 
withered.  The  Apostle  forthwith  Invited  him  to  con- 
fess his  crime,  "for,"  said  he,  "the  eucharist  of  the 
Lord  hath  convicted  thee."  It  Is  well  to  bear  in  mind 
that  the  magic  of  the  host  is  not  a  medieval  Invention 
but  as  primitive  as  the  rite  Itself. 

The  DIdascalla,  In  the  second  half  of  the  third  cen- 
tury, speaks  of  "offering  the  acceptable  eucharist,  which 
is  the  symbol  {avTirvrrav)  of  the  royal  body  of 
Christ."  In  the  next  age  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  call 
the  bread  and  wine  "symbols  (dvTtrvTra)  of  his  precious 
body  and  blood"  and  an  "unbloody  sacrifice,"  cele- 
brated to  commemorate  the  Lord's  death. "^  The 
Paullclans  and  ThronakI  also  allegorized  the  euchar- 
ist."^ 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea  says  that  Christians  are  "fed 
with  the  body  of  the  SavIour,"and  that  Christ  deliv- 
ered to  his  disciples  the  symbols  of  his  divine  incarna- 

138  Ep.  LXVIII,  14.     Mirbt,  24b. 

^^^Ibid.,  17. 

''■^^  De  lapsis,  cap.  25.     Dietrich,  107. 

1"  Cap.  XLVIII. 

"2  Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  v.  549. 

1*2  Conybeare,  "Paulicians,"  E.  B. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  75 

tion,  charging  them  to  make  the  image  of  his  own 
body/**  (Are  we  listening  to  the  priest  of  Aricia  and 
his  image  of  the  Wood-King  baked  in  bread?)  Here 
and  elsewhere  the  words  for  image  (ctxwv,  figura)^  im- 
ply the  real  presence. 

Tertullian's  fetishism  made  him  dread  any  disres- 
pect offered  to  the  magic  food.  He  speaks  of  "hand- 
ling the  Lord's  body"  and  of  "offering  violence  to  it." 
The  bread  he  also  calls  the  "figure  of  the  body,"  and 
"that  which  represents  the  body,"  without,  however, 
implying  that  the  body  is  absent.  Rather  than  saying 
that  he  began  to  confound  the  bread  with  the  body, 
it  is  truer  to  see  in  him  the  first  to  distinguish  them."^ 

In  many  writers  of  the  period  of  Rome's  decline 
and  fall  the  sacrificial  idea  comes  to  dominate  all  oth- 
ers. Some  such  idea  haunted  the  mind  of  Athen- 
agoras  when  he  speaks  of  "the  bloodless  sacri- 
fice of  Christians,"  as  the  counterpart  of  the  blody 
sacrifice  of  the  cross.  Thus  does  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem dilate  upon  the  "holy  and  most  awful  sacrifice," 
"Christ  immolated  for  our  sins  to  propitiate  God  who 
loves  men,"  offered  in  the  eucharist.  Thus  Chrysostom 
gloats  over  "the  Lord  lying  slain,  and  the  priest  stand- 
ing over  the  victim  praying,  all  reddened  with  that 
blood."  ''' 

Before  closing  this  section  on  the  primitive  church, 
it  is  pertinent  to  notice  one  question  which  early  came 
up,  as  to  ministration  of  women  in  the  eucharist.  From 
the  first,  women  had  taken  a  part  in  divine  service  and 
had  prophesied  with  the  men.     Such  were  the  daugh- 

^**  De  Solemnitate  Pasch.,  7. 

"5  Srawley,  E.  R.  £.,  v.  549. 

"^£>^  Sacerdot.,  VI,  4;   Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  551  f. 


76  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

ters  of  Philip  the  Evangelist,  from  whom,  according 
to  Harnack,"^  Luke  derived  much  of  his  peculiar  ma- 
terial. But  St.  Paul  opposed  it."^  As,  however,  the 
practice  continued  here  and  there,  we  meet  with  later 
efforts  to  deal  with  it.  The  most  interesting  of  these 
is  in  the  Apostolic  Church  Order.^^°  It  is  but  one 
instance  of  many  to  show  the  inveterate  tendency  of 
men  to  refer  back  to  authority,  and,  if  there  is  not  a 
command  of  God  covering  the  subject  they  desire  to 
deal  with,  to  invent  one.  Just  as  Paul  fabled  that 
Christ  had  instituted  the  Supper,  so  the  later  author 
felt  free  to  write  history  as  follows:  "The  Apostle 
John  said:  'You  have  forgotten,  brethren,  that  when 
the  master  demanded  the  cup  and  the  bread  and  con- 
secrated them  with  the  words.  That  is  my  body  and 
blood,  he  did  not  allow  them  [sc.  Mary  and  Martha] 
to  come  to  us.'  Martha  said,  'It  was  on  account  of 
Mary,  for  he  saw  her  smile.'  Mary  said:  'I  did  not 
laugh;  it  is  rather  as  he  said  to  us  before  that  weak- 
ness should  be  saved  by  strength.'  "  ^^^ 

This  obvious  invention  did  not  entirely  suppress  the 
abuse  at  which  it  was  aimed,  or  else  the  practice 
cropped  up  afresh  from  time  to  time.  The  service  of 
women  at  the  altar  was  condemned  by  a  council  of 
Nimes  in  394,  but  still  persisted  in  certain  parts  of 
France.  In  the  sixth  century  in  Brittany  women  called 
"conhospites"  offered  the  blood  of  Christ  to  the  people 
and  carried  the  elements  around  on  portable  altars. 
This  "unheard-of  superstition"  was  denounced  and  sup- 

^*8  Luke  the  Physician. 
1*9  I  Cor.  xiv.  34  ff;  cf.  i  Tim.  ii.  12. 

150  Bauer,    Das    Leben    Jesu    im    Zeitalter    der    neutestamentlichen 
Apocryphen,  1909,  165.     Pick,  Paralipomena,  68  f. 
151 1,  e.,  woman  by  man. 


PAUL  AND  HIS  SYMMYSTAE  77 

pressed  by  the  bishops  Licinius  of  Tours  and  Melaine 
of  Rennes.  It  continued  elsewhere,  however  until  the 
ninth  century/^^ 


152  Monumenta  Germ.  Hist.,  Leges,  I,  cap.  2,  p.  42.  I  owe  this 
reference  to  Dr.  R.  J.  Peebles.  Other  examples  of  women  who  dis- 
pensed the  eucharist  in  the  early  church  or  in  heretical  sects  given  in 
article  ^'Frauendmter,"  in  R.  G.  G.',  Lydia  Stocker,  Die  Frau  in  der 
alien  Kirche,  1907;  L.  Zscharnack,  Der  Dienst  der  Frau  in  den  ersten 
Jahrhunderten  der  christlichen  Kirche,  Gottingen,  1902. 


III.    TRANSUBSTANTIATION 

Ever  since  the  Reformation,  Protestants  have  been 
accustomed  to  think  of  transubstantiation  as  the  inept 
invention  of  a  barbarous  age,  taking  literally  words 
originally  figurative.  This  is  almost  the  inverse  of  the 
truth.  Transubstantiation  does  not  indicate  a  coarser 
conception  of  the  real  presence  than  that  held  by  the 
primitive  Christians,  but  a  finer  one.  It  was  an  at- 
tempt, not  to  impose  a  new  and  irrational  sense  on  the 
words  of  consecration,  but  to  explain  them.  Much 
of  the  history  of  theology  has  been  the  effort  to  find 
rational  theories  for  absurd  practices.  The  practice 
is  absurd  simply  because  the  age  has  outgrown  it,  and, 
with  the  progress  of  time,  the  quondam  explanation 
is  outgrown  in  its  turn,  is  denounced,  and  a  new  one  is 
found.  The  Orphics  felt  the  absurdity  of  eating  raw 
flesh  sacramentally,  and  invented  their  myth  of  the 
eaten  Dionysus  to  give  a  valid  theory  for  the  ancient 
survival.  When  Paul,  on  the  analogy  of  the  mystery 
religions,  evolved  from  his  inner  consciousness  the 
myth  ^  of  a  Saviour  who  should  die,  be  eaten,  and  rise 
again,  he  felt  that  the  only  explanation  of  the  mysteries 
necessary  was  the  story  of  Jesus,  part  of  which  he  had 
heard  from  others,  part  of  which  came  to  him  by  direct 
revelation.  Jesus,  he  taught,  must  have  done  and  said 
certain  things,  and  this  was  enough  to  make  the  estab- 

^Wrede:  Paul,  (English),  pp.  164,  178,  180.  Reitzenstein,  G. 
Murray  and  others  have  shown  that  the  idea  of  the  Gnostic  Saviour 
is  pre-Christian.  Murray,  Greek  Religion,  143  f,  with  references; 
Hibbert  Journal,  1913,  744  f. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  79 

lished  rites  valid  for  his  initiates.  For  the  majority 
of  early  Christians  the  same  was  true. 

But  as  times  changed,  and  as  the  church  expanded 
and  began  to  take  in  learned  and  intellectual  men,  the 
myth  was  no  longer  all-sufficient.  The  fundamental 
idea  of  the  absorption  of  deity  by  killing  and  eating 
it  became  less  obvious.  Men  began  to  speculate  how 
the  bread  and  wine  they  ate  could  be  the  very  body  and 
blood  of  immolated  God.  And  thus,  turning  to  Aris- 
totle or  to  other  philosophers,  they  evolved  the  dogma 
of  a  transmutation  in  the  substance  of  the  elements 
without  my  change  in  the  "accidents." 

As  some  such  explanation  was  inevitable  the  moment 
men  asked  the  question,  which  apparently  never  oc- 
curred to  Paul,  how  the  bread  could  be  the  body,  it 
can  be  traced  to  a  high  antiquity.  Even  the  Gnostics 
of  the  second  century  spoke  of  a  change  in  the  elements 
to  a  spiritual  potency,  though  the  outward  appearance 
remained  constant.^  Thus,  as  we  see  so  often,  it  was 
the  heretics  who  first  advanced  the  dogma  later  ortho- 
dox. Thus  it  is,  because  the  thinkers  who  first  per- 
ceive the  difficulties  in  the  old,  ipso  facto  become  here- 
tics, but,  as  they  are  merely  the  forerunners  of  the 
future,  the  first  to  sense  what  will  soon  be  obvious  to 
all,  their  new  explanation  gradually  becomes  more  and 
more  natural  and  widely  accepted.  In  this  case  their 
speculations  entered  the  church  by  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, whose  ideas  approach  that  of  transmutation  of 
the  elements.^  Irenaeus  *  distinguishes  two  factors  in 
the    bread,    which,    after    consecration,    is    no  longer 

2  Clemens   Alex.,   Exc.   Theodoti,   82. 

2  R.  B.  Tollington,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  ii.  155. 

*  Srawley,  Encyclopaedia   of  Religion  and  Ethics,  v.   547. 


8o  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

bread,  but  an  earthly  material  and  a  heavenly  com- 
bined. The  latter  is  absorbed  by  the  spirit,  the  former 
prepares  the  body  of  the  recipient  for  resurrection. 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem  expounds  the  idea  of  conversion, 
and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  compares  the  sacramental 
change  in  the  bread  and  wine  to  that  which  food  and 
drink  underwent  when  Jesus  ate  them,  and  thus  by 
digestion  made  them  his  body.^  After  the  year  400 
the  terrris  implying  a  change  in  the  elements  became 
common.  In  the  East  we  hear  Chrysostom  saying  that 
he  "buries  his  teeth  in  Christ's  flesh,"  ®  and  that  he 
who  is  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God  is  held  in  the 
hands  of  all.^  The  effect  of  the  sacrament  was  con- 
ceived in  the  most  literal  way.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  in 
language  worthy  of  the  Cretan  Orphic  or  of  Paul,  says 
that  "Christ  infused  himself  into  our  perishable  nature, 
that  by  communion  with  the  Deity  mankind  might  be 
deified."  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  states  that  the  eucharist 
makes  believers  of  one  body  and  one  blood  with  Christ, 

(^ovcrawfioi  Koi  (rvvatfioL  tov  Xpiarou)  .® 

Ambrose  was  the  father  of  transubstantiation  in  the 
West.  His  authority  was  held  high  not  only  in  his 
own  day,  but  in  the  time  of  the  Carolingian  renais- 
sance ®  and  of  the  Reformation.^"  He  speaks  of  the 
elements  being  transformed,  and  of  offering  the  trans- 
figured body.  In  the  De  Mysteriis,  the  authenticity 
of  which  has  been  doubted,  I  know  not  on  what 
grounds,  Ambrose  or  his  imitator  expounds  at  length 

5  Srawley,  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  v.  550. 

^  In  Johann.,  47,  46,  3. 

''  De  sacerd.  iii.  4. 

8  Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  v.  551. 

^  Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  iii.  310. 

10  Quoted,  e.  g.,  by  Henry  VIII  against  Luther,  O'Donovan,  212. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  .  8i 

the  doctrine  of  conversion,  in  exactly  the  style  later 
prevalent.  The  change,  according  to  him,  is  caused  by 
the  words  "this  is  my  body."  " 

But  in  that  very  age  there  were  great  Fathers  of  the) 
church  who  endeavored  to  give  a  more  spiritual  and 
therefore  a  more  symbolic  meaning  to  the  mode  of 
the  real  presence.  In  this  as  in  so  many  other  things 
Jerome  and  Augustine  were  the  precursors  of  the 
Reformation.  Their  language  dimly,  and  not  with- 
out ambiguity,  sowed  the  seeds  which  ripened  more 
than  a  millenium  later.  Jerome  speaks  of  the  bread 
as  "showing  forth  the  body  of  the  Saviour,"  and  as  "a 
memorial  of  redemption."  "  Augustine  went  deeper, 
to  the  very  foundations  of  religion.  Like  Luther  he 
believed  that  faith  was  the  all-important  element  in  sal- 
vation, and  thus  he  necessarily  relegated  ceremonies  to 
a  somewhat  subordinate  position.  ^^Crede  et  mandu-: 
castV^  ^^  is  his  justly  famous  application  of  this  princi-j 
pie  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  Faith,  therefore,  is  essen-i 
tial;  not  the  actual  eating  of  the  bread  and  wine,  for 
these  are  but  "signs  of  the  body  and  blood,"  and  the 
whole  rite  but  "a  sacrament  of  commemoration  of 
Christ's  sacrifice."  ^*  This  is  all  implied  in  his  defini- 
tion of  sacrament,  later  universally  adopted,  as  the 
outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual 
grace.  And  yet  he  was  not  always  consistent  in  his 
language.  Like  Luther  later  he  at  times  felt  the 
necessity  of  maintaining  a  double,  and  really  self-con- 
tradictory, thesis,  that  both  faith  and  the  bread  were 
necessary;  that  Christ  was  "offered  up  once  for  all  in 

11  Harnack,  loc.  cit.,  Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  v.  551. 

12  Srawley,  ibid. 

13  In  Johann.  xxv.  12. 

1*  Contra  Faustum,  xx.  21. 


82  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

his  own  person,  and  yet  was  offered  up  daily  in  the 
sacrament  among  the  congregations."  ^^ 
^  But  Augustine  was  far  ahead  of  his  age.  In  two 
centuries  the  cruder  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  had  be- 
come official.  Gregory  the  Great  goes  into  a  rhapsody 
on  the  duty  of  daily  immolating  to  God  the  offering 
of  his  flesh  and  blood.^®  So  great  was  its  power  of 
mollifying  an  offended  Deity,  that  it  was  able  to  loose 
souls  from  the  pains  of  purgatory.  As  to  Paul,  so  to 
the  pope,  a  special  revelation  was  vouchsafed  on  this 
subject.  In  a  dream  he  witnessed  a  poor  soul  in  pur- 
gatory, whose  torture  was  abated  as  often  as  mass  was 
said  for  him." 

As  is  frequently  the  case,  the  coarser  and  grosser 
doctrine  drove  out  the  more  spiritual  by  mere  weight 
of  the  numbers  of  its  adherents.  The  masses  are 
never  able  to  grasp  the  finer  ideas  of  the  leaders  of 
thought,  and  they  are  stubbornly  attached  to  the  old 
and  customary.  So  we  find  Paschasius  Radbert,  in  the 
ninth  century,  when  he  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  a 
transmutation  in  the  elements,  stating  for  his  authority 
not  so  much  Ambrose  and  others  whom  he  might  have 
quoted,  as  the  common  opinion  of  mankind.  The  fol- 
lowers of  Augustine  who  opposed  him  were  crushed 
by  authority.  The  first  of  these  was  Ratramnus,  who 
asserted  that  the  body  and  blood  were  mere  figures  or 
symbols. ^^  Two  hundred  years  later  Berengar,  whom 
the  Catholics  always  cite  as  the  precursor  of  Zwingli, 

15  Ep.  98.  Somewhat  compressed.  The  Paulicians  held  a  doctrine 
resembling  that  of  the  Quakers,  that  no  bread  and  wine  were  needed 
in  the  eucharist,  and  that  Christ  had  used  none.  See  F.  C.  Conybeare, 
"Paulicians,"  in  Encyclopaedia  Brittanica. 

1^  Dialogi  Quattuor  de  vita  et  miraculis  patrum,  iv.   56. 

1'^  In  evangelia,  ii.  37,  8. 

1^  Mirbt,  96.     Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  iii.   310. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  83 

maintained  the  doctrine  of  a  spiritual,  as  contrasted 
with  a  corporeal,  presence.     But  he  was  condemned 
unheard  in  1050,   and  in  1059  was  forced  to  sign  a 
confession  that,  "the  bread  and  wine  after  consecra- 
tion   .    .    .    are  the  true  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ     .     .      .     and  are  sensibly,  not  only  in 
the  sacrament  but  in  truth,   held  and  broken  in  the 
hands  of  the  priest,  and  consumed  by  the  teeth  of  the  ! 
faithful."  ^^     The  significance  of  the  whole  controver- 
sy from  Radbert  to  Berengar  was  not  so  much  that  it  .^ 
established  the  dogma  of  change  in  the  substance  of  the  \ 
elements,  for  this  had  been  pretty  well  established  be-  | 
fore,  as  that  it  thoroughly  ventilated  the  subject  and 
unified  the  hitherto  somewhat  fragmentary  teachings 
of  the  church.     Paschasius  first  treated  the  eucharist 
exhaustively  from  all  points  of  view,  and  gave  an  ex- 
planation of   some   sort  to   all  the   practices   of  the 
church. ^°     In    opposing   him    Ratramnus "    started    a 
controversy  the   extent  of  which  he   could  not  have 
grasped. 

The  schoolman  of  the  twelfth  century  contributed  a  \ 
suitable   vocabulary.     Then   first  was   introduced   the 
distinction  between  the  "substance"  and  the  "accident," 
and  then  was  coined  the  word  "transubstantiation."  ^^ 
This  terminology  was  adopted  and  the  form  of  the 
dogma  permanently  fixed  by  the  Fourth  Lateran  Coun-; 
cil   in    1215.     It   decreed:     "There   is   one   universal i 
church  of  the  faithful,  outside  of  which  no  one  at  all  ] 
is  in  a  state  of  salvation.     In  this  church  Jesus  Christ 
himself  is  both  priest  and  sacrifice;  and  his  body  and 

19  Mirbt,  113.     Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  iii.  380. 

20  Harnack,  ibid.,  311. 

21  Not  Radbert,    as   Protestant   Harnack  says,   ibid.   316. 

22  Harnack,  Dogmengeschichte,  iii.  385;  Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  v.  558. 


84  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

blood  are  really  contained  In  the  sacrament  of  the  altar 
under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine,  the  bread  being 
transubstantiated  into  the  body  and  the  wine  being 
transubstantiated  into  the  blood,  by  the  power  of  God, 
in  order  that,  to  effect  the  mystery  of  union,  we  our- 
selves might  receive  from  him  (de  suo)  what  he  him- 
self has  received  from  us  {de  nostro)^^^  This  de- 
cree was  taken  into  the  Canon  Law,  and  put  on  a  par 
with  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation.^* 
Even  Scripture  was  tampered  with  —  as  it  constantly 
has  been  in  the  interest  of  dogma  —  and  the  text  about 
"not  discerning  the  body"  (i  Cor.  xl.  29)  was  altered 
to  "not  differentiating  the  substance."  ^^  In  like  man- 
ner it  was  again  altered  in  the  official  edition  of  1590, 
to  read,  against  the  Protestants,  "not  discerning  the 
body  of  the  Lord^ 

The  schoolmen  of  the  following  period  drew  the 
corollaries  of  the  Lateran  decree,  and  endeavored  to 
elucidate  it.  Aquinas  affirmed  that  the  eucharist  is  a 
sacrament  as  received  and  a  sacrifice  as  offered.  As  to 
the  first  aspect,  the  whole  Christ,  Man  and  God,  is 
present  in  both  species  and  in  every  fragment.^®  This 
was  necessary  to  be  preached  because  of  the  custom, 
begun  in  the  twelfth  century,  of  withholding  the  cup 
from  the  laity.^'^  It  is  remarkable  that  Aquinas  has  so 
little  to  say  about  the  sacrifice,  and,  on  the  whole,  con- 
ceives it  so  differently  from  Chrysostom.  The  reason 
is  to  be  found  in  the  change  of  emphasis  in  religion 
between  the  fourth  and  the  thirteenth  century.     To  the 

23  Mirbt,  143. 

2*  Harnack,  Dogmengesch.  iii.  386  f. 

25  E.  S.  Buchanan,  Expositor,  1915,  pp.  420  ff. 

26  Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  v.  559,  561;  Graebke,  36. 

27  Srawley,  563. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  85 

primitive  Christian,  familiar  as  he  was  with  sacrifices 
and  scapegoats,  the  actual  immolation  of  a  victim  to 
appease  the  divinity  was  all  important.  To  the  Ger- 
manic Christians  of  a  thousand  years  later,  the  idea 
of  sacrifice  was  foreign,  and  that  of  magical  charms  of 
all  kinds  was  familiar.  What  they  wanted  and  what 
they  saw  in  the  blessed  food  was  therefore  chiefly  a 
talisman.  To  be  certified  of  its  authenticity  was  all 
they  required. 

As  consequences  of  the  establishment  of  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation,  Harnack^^  enumerates,  i.  Stop- 
ping of  children's  communion.  2.  Rise  in  respect  for 
the  priest,  who  was  credited  with  the  power  to  perform 
a  stupendous  miracle.  3.  Withdrawal  of  the  cup  from 
the  laity,  in  order,  probably,  to  make  a  distinction  be- 
tween laymen  and  priests.  4.  Adoration  of  the  ele- 
vated host.  It  was  natural  that,  if  the  wafer  were 
God,  it  should  be  worshiped  as  such.  A  logical  conse- 
quence of  this  custom  was  the  establishment  in  1264, 
of  the  festival  of  Corpus  Christi  day  to  celebrate,  on 
the  Thursday  after  Trinity  Sunday,  the  miracle  of  the 
making  of  Christ's  body.^^  -- 

A  new  and  comprehensive  statement  of  Catholic 
doctrine  was  called  for  by  the  Reformation  and  furn- 
ished by  the  Council  of  Trent.  The  first  decree  on 
the  subject,  covering  the  main  points  of  doctrine  was 
passed  at  the  thirteenth  session  in  1551.  But  the  de- 
cree on  the  cup  for  the  laity  and  communion  of  chil- 
dren, together  with  that  on  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass 
and  some  other  matters,  on  which  it  was  expected  the 
Protestants  would  be   heard,   was   postponed  by   the 

"^^  Dogmengesch.,  iii.   580  f. 

29  Srawley,  E.  R.  E.,  v.  560.     R.  G.  G.,  s.  v.  "Fronleichnamsfest." 


86  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Legate,  and  not  finally  passed  until  the  twenty-first 
session  in  1562.^°  It  has  been  noted  by  Francis  Bacon, 
Harnack,  and  others,  that  the  main  source  for  the  doc- 
trine promulgated  by  the  Council  was  not  any  written 
authority,  but  the  usage  of  the  church.  This  was  re- 
garded as  decisive  in  all  cases.  Harnack  puts  the  mat- 
ter polemically,  but  truly,  when  he  says  all  the  bad 
practices  connected  with  the  mass  were  sanctioned, 
down,  to  the  last  letter.^^ 

The  decree  of  October  11,  1551,^^  may  be  sum- 
marized as  follows:  i.  Jesus  Christ,  very  God  and 
very  man,  is  truly,  really,  and  substantially  present 
under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine.  The  words  of 
Paul  and  the  evangelists,  "this  is  my  body,"  must  be 
taken  in  their  proper  and  plain  meaning.  2.  By  this 
spiritual  food  men  are  cleansed  from  daily  faults  and 
preserved  from  mortal  sins.  3.  The  eucharist  is  ex- 
cellent above  the  other  sacraments.  4.  After  conse- 
cration, the  whole  substance  of  bread  is  converted  into 
the  whole  substance  of  the  body  and  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  wine  into  the  whole  substance  of  the  blood 
and  this  change  is  properly  called  transubstantiation. 
5.  The  host  is  to  be  adored  with  the  cultus  latriae,  or 
form  of  worship  owed  to  very  God.  The  festival  of 
Corpus  Christ!  is  confirmed.  6.  The  ancient  custom 
of  taking  the  sacrament  to  the  sick  is  approved.  7. 
Confession  is  a  necessary  preparation  for  communion. 
8.  The  self-communion  of  priests  is  a  custom  descend- 
ing as  it  were  from  apostolic  tradition. 

The  decree  of  July   16,    1562,^^  declares  that  the 

30  Pastor,  Gesch.  d.  Pdpste,  vi.  82  f.,  vii,  219  f.,  226  fiF. 
3^  Dogmengsch.,  iii.  703. 
32  Mirbt,  225   ff. 
33Mirbt,  239  ff. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  87 

granting  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  Is  not  a  divine  com- 
mand, and  that  though  It  has  often  been  done,  yet  he 
who  denies  that  the  church  has  power  and  weighty  rea- 
son for  withholding  it,  shall  be  anathema.  The  same 
position  is  taken  about  the  communion  of  children. 

The  dogma  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  was  passed 
at  the  twenty-second  session,  September  27,  1562.^^  It 
declares  that  Christ,  as  a  priest  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedek,  at  the  last  supper  offered  his  body  and 
blood  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine  to  God  the 
Father.  A  similar  sacrifice  is  offered  by  the  priest,  as 
is  proved  by  the  words  "This  do  In  remembrance  of 
me,"  by  Paul's  words  to  the  Corinthians  ( i  Cor.  x. 
20  f )  and  by  other  passages  of  Scripture.  It  declares 
further  that :  2.  The  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  propitiatory 
for  the  living  and  dead.  3.  It  Is  good  to  hold  masses  In 
honor  of  the  saints.  5.  All  the  usual  ceremonies  are 
right.  6.  The  mass  in  which  the  priest  only  communi- 
cates Is  approved.  7.  The  mixing  of  water  with  wine  Is 
believed  to  have  been  done  by  Christ.  8.  The  mass  is 
not  to  be  celebrated  In  any  vulgar  tongue,  but  its  mys- 
teries are  to  be  explained  to  the  people. 

A  brief  resume  of  official  Catholic  dogma  gives  but  a 
faint  picture  of  the  Importance  of  the  mass  through- 
out the  Middle  Ages.^^  It  was  the  focus  of  religion 
and  of  life.  It  was  a  main  factor  In  determining  the 
constitution  of  the  church.  Control  of  the  sacraments 
as  the  necessary  means  of  salvation  made  possible  the 
interdict  and  the  crusades,  the  humiliation  of  Henry 
IV  at  Canossa  and  the  sway  of  Innocent  III.  Pen- 
ance and  excommunication  were  realities;  the  priest 
could  open  the  gates  of  heaven  and  consign  to  hell. 

3*Mirbt,  241  ff. 
ssShotwell,  iff. 


88  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

The  economic  results  of  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharlst 
were  tremendous,  because  the  endowment  of  masses 
for  the  dead  absorbed  an  immense  amount  of  wealth. 
As  each  mass  was  an  act  of  propitiation,  it  was  expedi- 
ent to  have  as  many  of  them  as  possible.^®  Nor  were 
these  acts  of  propitiation  valid  only  for  the  good  of  the 
soul.  A  sixteenth  century  author  ^^  says  that  the  pap- 
ists apply  masses  "to  soldjoures  in  war,  for  faire 
weather  and  rayne,  for  the  plage  pockes  and  such 
other  diseases,  for  beastes  sicke  of  the  morren."  Mass 
was  said  in  order  to  consecrate  marriage,  or  to  cele- 
brate a  great  victory  for  the  faith  of  Jesus,  such  as  the 
massacre  of  the  Waldenses  or  of  the  Huguenots.  It 
was  said  on  board  ship  to  allay  tempest,  and,  if  the 
bread  and  wine  could  not  be  obtained,  the  canon  might 
be  said  just  the  same  without  them.  In  this  case  it  was 
called  "a  mock  mass,"  "a  dry  mass,"  or  "a  naval 
mass."  ^^ 

It  Is  probably  best  to  explain  the  analogous  custom 
of  giving  to  warriors  on  the  field  of  battle,  when  they 
were  In  danger  of  death  and  no  bread  could  be  ob- 
tained, in  place  of  It  three  blades  of  grass,  or  a  bit  of 
earth  by  saying  that  the  priest  simply  took  whatever 
was  In  reach.  Attempts  to  connect  the  custom  with  old 
superstitions  about  the  magical  properties  of  grass  or 
of  mother  earth  seem  rather  far  fetched. ^^  I  have  even 
seen  the  statement  somewhere  that  the  proverb  "to 
bite  the  dust"  is  derived  from  this  custom.  It  is,  how- 
ever, found  in  Homer.*'' 

36  Srawley,  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  v.  562. 
3^  Bancrafte,  preface. 

38  Missa  sicca,  missa  ficta,  missa  navalis,  Du  Cange,  Glossarium 
mediae  et  infimae  Latinitatis,  etc.,  s.v.   "Missa." 

39  G.  L.  Hamilton:  "Sources  of  the  Symbolical  Lay  Communion," 
Romanic  Remeiv,  191 3,  iv.  221  flF. 

40  Iliad  ii.  418;  xi.  749. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  89 

The  word  "mass"  or  "missa"  first  met  with  In  the 
writings  of  Ambrose  (or  Pseudo-Ambrose)  was  de- 
rived by  Alculn  from  "mittendo,"  "that  which  sends 
us  to  God,"  and  by  Bede  either  from  "mittere,"  a  word 
used  of  sacrifice,  or  from  "missus,"  a  mess  of  food/^ 
Reuchlin,*^  followed  by  Melanchthon,^^  Zwingli  **  and 
Baronlus,^^  derived  it  from  the  Hebrew  "massa"  mean- 
ing "offering"  or  "tribute,"  (Deuteronomy,  xvi.  10.) 
Luther  found  the  etymon  in  the  Hebrew  "Mauzzim," 
which  he  translated  now  as  the  name  of  a  false  God,*'^ 
and  again  defined  as  "a  lucrative  cult  for  the  sake  of 
money  or  gain."  *''  The  true  derivation  is  doubtless 
from  the  words  spoken  to  the  catechumens  just  before 
the  communion  service,  "Ite,  missa  est." 

As  the  host  became  the  center  of  worship  and  of 
magic,  the  fetishism  connected  with  it  grew  to  incred- 
ible proportions.     There  Is  a  truth  in  Harnack's  ob-\ 
servation  that  the  placing,  by  the  Fourth  Lateran  Coun-  ' 
cil,  of  the  dogma  of  the  eucharist  on  an  equality  with 
those  of  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation  was  the  boldest 
and  most  characteristic  deed  of  the   Middle  Ages.*^  / 
Hysterical  saints  received  visions  of  Jesus  telling  them 
that  the  most  precious  thing  on  earth  was  his  holy 
corpse  which  was  daily  transmuted  by  the  priest.*®   Im- 
proving on  TertuUian,  the  Synod  of  Cologne  provided 

^1  Du  Cange,  s.v.  "Missa." 

^^  De  rudimentis  hebraicis,  1506,  p.  289. 

*3  Corpus  Ref.,  xxiii.  65  f. 

**  Corpus  Ref.,  Ixxxix.  567. 

4^  Du  Cange,  s.v.  "Missa." 

*6  In   Daniel  xi.   38    (German  Bible);    Conversations  ivith  Luther, 

145- 

^"^  Drews,  70.  Though  Luther  distinctly  used  the  word  "Mauzzim" 
here,  the  meaning  he  gives  it  shows  that  he  probably  confused  it 
with  "massa." 

^s  Dogmengesch'tchte,  iii.  388. 

*9  Vision  of  Adelheid  Langmann  in  the  fourteenth  century,  Die- 
trich, Eine  Mithrasliturgie,  preface. 


90  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

In  1280  that  if  any  consecrated  wine  was  spilt  the  priest 
should  lick  it  up.^°  Everything  was  done  to  make  vivid 
to  the  people  the  reality  of  the  body  and  blood.  Thus 
the  bread  was  made  in  the  image  of  a  man  and  pierced 
by  the  priest,^^  just  as  the  great  god  of  the  Aztecs  had 
once  been  treated;  hot  water  was  used  to  increase  the 
resemblance  of  the  wine  to  blood.^^  Eugenius  IV  tells 
of  a  host  at  Divio  which  bled  when  cut  by  a  sacrilegious 
person.®^  Caesarius  of  Heisterbach  knew  of  many 
cases  when  Christ  had  appeared  in  the  hands  of  the 
priest  holding  the  host.^*  Paschasius  Radbert,  in  stat- 
ing why  the  transformation  of  bread  and  wine  into 
body  and  blood  does  not  appear  to  the  senses,  says 
first  that  it  would  be  unnecessary  and  offensive,  and 
then  that  it  often  did  happen  nevertheless.^^ 

The  host  was,  in  fact,  regarded  as  a  powerful  charm. 
As  early  as  the  time  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  we  hear  of 
a  sick  woman  named  Gorgonia  who  was  cured  by  vis- 
iting a  church  and  rubbing  her  body  with  the  conse- 
crated bread  and  wine  reserved  there."  Stephen  of 
Bourbon  tells  of  a  man  who  stole  the  host  to  get 
wealth,  and  how  some  bees,  finding  it,  had  made  a  wax 
church  for  it  and  stung  a  man  trying  to  take  it  away.^* 
Savonarola,  after  offering  to  submit  to  the  ordeal  by 
fire,  refused  to  enter  the  flames  without  either  the  host 

5°  Du  Cange,  s.<v.  "Ablingere." 

51  Conybeare,   "Eucharist,"  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  Peebles,   208. 

52  Du  Cange,  s.v.  "Aqua." 

53  Du  Cange,  s.v.  "Hostia." 

^*  Dialogus  miraculorum,  quoted   by  J.   H.   Robinson,  Readings  in 
European  History,  1904,  i.  355  f. 
55  Harnack,  Dogmengesch.,  iii.  314. 

57  D.  Stone,  i.  106.  Against  this  interpretation  of  the  passage, 
J.  T.  S.,  xi.  (1909-10),  27s  f. 

58  Quoted    by  Robinson,   Readings    in  European   History,  I.    355   f. 


TRAN  SUBSTANTIATION  91 

or  a  crucifix  to  guard  him.^"  A  morsel  of  the  host  j 
bought  from  a  priest  or  stolen  was  always  the  safest  \ 
charm  for  all  kinds  of  good  luck.  The  method  of 
treating  it  was  sometimes  singularly  drastic.  Eras- 
mus tells  of  a  wizard  at  Orleans  who  bought  a  frag- 
ment of  the  Lord's  body  from  a  mass-priest,  and 
would  get  a  virgin  to  stand  over  it  with  a  drawn  sword 
as  if  threatening;  thus  he  succeeded  in  invoking  devils 
to  do  his  bidding,  until  at  last  he  unintentionally  called 
up  those  still  worse  devils,  the  inquisitors.*'"  It  was 
believed  that  a  parody  of  the  mass  would  have  great 
power,  and  that  it  was  the  culmination  of  the  wicked- 
ness indulged  in  by  witches  at  their  Sabbaths.®^ 

As  a  magic  talisman  the  eucharist  became  a  favorite 
means  of  detecting  crime. ^^  Rudolph  Glaber,  for  exam- 
ple, tells  of  a  criminal  in  clerical  dress  who  swallowed 
the  eucharist,  but  who,  when  it  immediately  emerged 
from  his  navel,  confessed.  Pope  Gregory  VII  cleared 
himself  of  the  charge  of  simony  in  1077  by  taking  the 
eucharist.^^ 

But  with  all  its  machinery  of  heaven  and  hell,  with 
all  its  apparatus  of  myth,  magic  and  miracle,  the 
church  was  not  able  to  produce  reverence  for  the  most 
awful  of  her  mysteries.  Swearing  by  the  mass  and  thus 
"tearing  the  holy  body  of  God  omnipotent"  was  com- 
mon in  the  age  of  faith. ^*    Such  proverbial  phrases  as 

59  Pastor,  History  of  the  Popes,  vi.  42.  Smith:  Affe  of  the  Reform- 
ation, 18. 

^°  Epistle  of  Jan.  14,  1501;  Allen,  Ep.  143. 

^1  H.  C.  Lea,  A  History  of  the  Inquisition  in  the  Middle  Ages,  iii. 
500.     Smith:  Age  of  the  Reformation,  654. 

^2  On  this,  Jacoby:  "Der  Ursprung  des  Judicium  Offae,"  Archiv 
fiir  Religionsivissenschaft,  1910,  p.  525. 

^3  Du  Cange,  s.v.  "Eucharistia." 

^*  Barclay:  Ship  of  Fools  (1509,  from  Brandt's  Narrenschiff,  1494), 
1874,  "•  132  f. 


92  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

"sacrificing  the  tail  of  the  host,"  meaning  to  complete 
a  job,  surely  show  little  respect.^^  Nay,  the  holy  drug  of 
immortality  became  a  favorite  vehicle  for  shortening 
the  life  of  enemies  by  poison.  Thus,  among  many  ex- 
amples, the  Emperor  Henry  VII  is  said  to  have  been 
murdered  in  1313.^^ 

On  the  art  and  literature  of  the  later  Middle  Ages 
the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  had  a  powerful  influence. 
The  Gothic  cathedrals  were  consciously  built  around 
the  Lord's  Table.  The  missals  bloomed  with  many 
a  rare  flower  of  illuminated  letter  and  headpiece.  One 
of  the  greatest  paintings  of  the  Renaissance,  Raphael's 
Debate  on  the  Sacrament,  represents  the  supreme  mys- 
tery of  the  Catholic  faith,  the  Triune  God  hovering 
above  the  sacred  bread. *^^  And  the  paintings  of  the 
Last  Supper  are  countless. 

The  popular  literature  of  the  later  Middle  Ages  is 
full  of  stories  of  Jesus  appearing  in  the  host.  In 
Malory's  Le  Morte  d' Arthur,  book  xvii,  chapter  xx, 
such  a  theophany  to  Galahad  is  recounted  in  these 
words :  "Then  the  bishop  made  semblaunt  as  though 
he  would  have  gone  to  the  sacring  of  the  mass.  And 
then  he  took  an  ubblie  [wafer]  which  was  made  in 
likeness  of  bread.  And  at  the  lifting  up  there  came 
a  figure  in  the  likeness  of  a  child,  and  the  visage  was 
as  red  and  as  bright  as  any  fire,  and  smote  himself 
into  the  bread,  so  that  they  all  saw  it  that  the  bread 
was  formed  of  a  fleshly  man;  and  then  he  put  it  into 
the  Holy  Vessel  again,  and  then  he  did  that  longed  to 
a  priest  to  do  to  a  mass." 

65  Du  Cange,  s.v.  "Hostia." 

66  J.  F.  Meyer,  passim. 

67  On  this,  Pastor,  History  of  the  Popes,  vi,  560  ff. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  93 

One  of  the  most  bizarre  of  medieval  superstitions\ 
was  that  Jews  would  buy  the  consecrated  bread  in 
order  through  it  to  torment  Christ.  In  the  English 
Play  of  the  Sacrament,^^  they  bought  from  a  merchant 
a  host  for  one  hundred  pounds,  and  then  "put  hym  to  a 
newe  passyon ;  with  daggers  gouen  hym  many  a  greuyos 
wound;  nayled  hym  to  a  pyller;  with  pynsons  plukked 
hym  doune."  At  all  this  the  host  bled,  and  when  af- 
terwards put  in  a  cauldron  and  boiled,  its  blood  made 
the  water  red.  Put  then  into  an  oven,  which  burst 
asunder  and  bled  at  the  crannies,  Jesus  himself  ap- 
peared in  his  own  form  and  remonstrated  with  his 
tormentors  in  bad  Latin:  "O  mirabiles  Judei,  atten- 
dite  et  videte  Si  est  dolor  similis  dolor  meus !  Oh  ye 
merveylows  Jewys,  why  are  ye  to  yower  kyng  onkynd?" 
The  Jews  were  immediately  converted  by  this  miracle, 
and  were  given  suitable  penance  to  expiate  their  crime 
of  torturing  God. 

The  greatest  poem  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Dante's 
Divine  Comedy,  glorifies  transubstantiation.^^  This 
purpose  finally  became  the  leading  motive  in  the  famous 
legend  of  the  Grail.  This  is  particularly  interesting 
as  showing  how  a  legend,  based  on  a  pagan  fertility 
rite  of  sacrifice  and  theophagy  was  adapated  to  Chris- 
tian purposes,  transforming  the  sacrament  of  an  older 
religion  into  that  of  the  current  faith.  This  was  eas- 
ily done  as  both  sacraments  had,  though  this  was  un- 
known to  the  medieval  writers,  similar  origin  and  his- 

68  Fifteenth  Century,  reprinted,  ]:  M.  Manley:  Specimens  of  the 
Pre-Shakesperean  Drama,  1903,  i.  240  ff. 

'  ^^h-  .^'  F'sher:  The  Mystic  Vision  in  the  Grail  Legend  and  in 
the  Divine  Comedy.  1917,  Jessie  L.  Weston:  The  Court  of  the  Holy 
Grail,  1914,  and  the  valuable  review  of  this  book  by  Winifred  Smith 
in  the  Dial,  May  i,  1914,  pp.  385  ff. 


94  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

tory.  Among  other  points  of  resemblance  between  the 
two  rituals,  as  developed  In  the  Middle  Ages,  we  find 
that  the  service  of  the  maidens  in  carrying  around 
the  grail  was  similar  to  that  of  the  women  of  Brittany 
who  carried  the  eucharlst  among  the  people  on  portable 
altars.'" 


TO  Peebles:  The  Legend  of  Longinus,  1911,  p.  209. 


IV.    CONSUBSTANTIATION 

But  though  the  church  might,  and  did,  delay  the  pro- 
gress of  enlightenment,  she  was  fortunately  unable  to 
stop  it  altogether.  As  in  other  dogmas,  so  in  this  of 
the  God  made  bread,  there  were  always  doubters. 
Skepticism  in  Italy  went  so  far  that  even  the  priests 
who  celebrated  mass  would  say,  instead  of  "this  is  my 
body,"  "bread  thou  art  and  bread  thou  shalt  remain."  ^ 

More  important  for  the  history  of  dogma,  though 
far  less  radically  rational,  were  the  scruples  of  the 
schoolmen  at  transubstantiation.  Never  doubting  the 
real  presence  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  bread 
and  wine,  they  yet  sought  some  way  of  making  it  more 
intelligible  than  that  defined  by  the  Lateran  Council. 
So  subservient  is  the  human  mind  to  the  thought  and 
terminology  of  contemporaries,  that  the  theory  they 
hit  upon  was  but  one  degree  further  along  the  road 
from  mystery  to  reason  than  was  the  theory  they  at- 
tacked. As  a  substitute  for  transubstantiation,  by  ', 
which  the  body  was  turned  into  bread,  they  proposed  \ 
consubstantiation,  by  which  bread  remained,  but  God's  '• 
body  was  added  to  it.  Thus  Durand  held  that  "hoc 
est  corpus  meum"  meant  "sub  hoc  est  contentum  corpus 
meum."  ^  William  of  Ockam  formulated  the  idea 
more  plainly,  teaching  that  the  orthodox  view  was  less 
likely  than  that  Christ's  body  was  present  with  the 

1  Luther  says  he  heard  this  at  Rome  in  1510;  Sermon  of  April  19, 
1538,  Buchwald,   338. 

2  Schaff,  vol.  V,  part  ii.  p.  190. 


96  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

bread.^  Most  clearly  of  all,  Cardinal  d'Ailly  said: 
"It  is  very  possible  that  the  substance  of  the  bread 
coexists  with  the  substance  of  the  body  of  Christ.  .  • 
That  mode  Is  possible,  nor  is  it  repugnant  to  reason 
nor  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible;  rather  it  is  easier  to 
understand  and  more  rational  than  any  other  mode 
[of  the  real  presence]."  * 

Gabriel  Biel  made  consubstantiation  his  own  in  these 
words :  "The  body  of  Christ  is  not  seen  by  us,  neither 
is  it  bitten  by  the  teeth,  nor  perceived  by  the  taste,  but 
the  species  of  the  bread  is  both  bitten  and  tasted,  and 
under  it  is  contained  the  true,  whole,  and  perfect  body 
of  Christ."  ^  It  Is  instructive  to  see  In  this  how  grad- 
ually the  dogma  shaded  off  Into  the  symbolism  of  the 
simple  memorial.  The  next  step  after  Biel  was  taken 
by  John  Wessel,  who  taught  that  the  Lord's  Supper 
was  a  rite  by  which  the  death  of  Christ  is  appropriated 
to  the  believer.  Christopher  Honlus,  or  Hoen,  of  the 
Netherlands,  took  the  dogma  as  far  as  any  of  the 
Reformers  when  he  suggested  that  in  the  words  of 
consecration,  "is"  meant  "signifies,"  and  that  the  pres- 
ence of  Christ's  body  Is  therefore  only  a  figure  of 
speech.®  Pica  della  Mirandola  also  considered  the 
words  "This  Is  my  body,"  symbolic  or  "significative," 
not  literal.^ 

Though  Wyclif  Is  commonly  considered  the  most 
/  Important  of  the  medieval  rebels  from  Rome,  yet  he 
I  made  no  attack  on  dogma  whatever,  save  on  this  point 
\  of  transubstantlatlon.  His  voluminous  works  are  filled 

3  Schaff,  vol.  V,  part  ii,  p.  192. 
^  Quaestiones,  lib.  iv,  p.  6,   art.  2. 

5  Ashley,  254. 

6  De  Avondmaalsbrief  van  Cornelius  Hoen  1525.  Uitgegeven  door 
A.  Eekhof.    191 7. 

"^  Schaff,  vol.  V,  part  ii,  p.  597. 


CONSUBSTANTIATION  97 

with  denunciations  of  the  practices  of  the  clergy,  and 
of  their  morals,  but  one  treatise  only  is  distinctly  new 
and  dogmatical.  As  a  moralist  he  was  irritated  by  the 
idolatry  of  the  host;  as  a  scholastic  he  was  offended 
by  the  absurdity  of  substance  without  accident.^  He, 
like  his  contemporaries,  protested  against  the  abuses 
of  masses  for  souls,  but  he  never  attacked  the  doctrine 
of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  as  such.^  Transubstantia- 
tion  drew  all  his  anger.  "This  heresy,"  says  he,  "robs 
the  people,  renders  them  idolaters,  denies  the  teaching 
of  Scripture,  and  moves  Christ  himself  to  wrath." 
Through  it  "Antichrist  subverts  grammar,  logic,  all 
natural  science  and  even  destroys  the  sense  of  the  Gos- 
pel." ^°  Wyclif  examines  and  denies  each  of  three 
theories  of  the  real  presence,  transubstantiation,  iden- 
tification, and  impanation.  Christ  is  present,  he  says, 
"sacramentally,  spiritually  or  virtually"  as  the  soul  is 
present  in  every  part  of  the  body.  An  animal  or  a 
man  predestined  to  reprobation  would  no  more  partake 
of  Christ  in  the  bread  than  a  lion  eating  a  man  would 
eat  his  soul.^^  For  his  error  on  the  sacrament,  as  well 
as  for  others,  he  was  condemned  by  the  English  coun- 
cil of  1382.^^ 

Huss,  who  followed  Wyclif  in  almost  everything 
else,  did  not  adopt  his  views  on  this  subject.  His  rad- 
ical followers,  however,  known  as  the  Taborites  and 
Bohemian  Brethren,  not  only  demanded  the  cup  for  the 
laity,  but  denied  the  efficacy  of  masses  for  the  dead  " 

*  Harnack,  Dogmengesch.,  iii.   579. 

^  Ibid.  582  f.    Loserth  "Wiclif"  in  R.  G.  G. 

^°  Trialogus,  pp.  248,  261. 

^1  De  eucharistia,  passim. 

12  SchafF,  op.  cit.,  320. 

13  Errors  of  the  Bohemian  Brethren  drawn  up  by  J.  Lilienstayn  in 
150S,  quoted  by  P.  S.  Allen:  Age  of  Erasmus,  291. 


98  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

and  transubstantiatlon.^*  The  Hussite  Martin  Hansk 
taught  that  "in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar  there  is  not 
the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but  only  bread, 
which  is  a  sign,  and  that  only  when  it  is  taken,  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ."  ^^ 

On  this  matter  the  church  could  not  afford  to  parley; 
but  she  was  disposed  to  compromise  on  giving  the  cup 
to  the  laity.  After  long  negotiations  with  the  Council 
of  Basle,  this  was  finally  granted  to  the  Bohemians  in 
a  compact  of  1436.  The  terms  were  stated  with  in- 
tentional ambiguity,  which  resulted  in  the  Council  act- 
ing as  if  the  Bohemians  had  submitted  and  the  Bo- 
hemians assuming  that  their  views  had  triumphed.  Not- 
withstanding the  subsequent  machinations  of  Rome  to 
suppress  them,  they  succeeded  in  maintaining  them- 
selves by  force  of  arms.^® 


i^Schaff,  op.  cit.,  388. 

i5Janssen,2o  ii.  455,  note  2. 

1^  Pastor,  History  of  the  Popes,  iii.  213   f. 


V.     LUTHER 

Before  narrating  the  numerous  controversies  of 
Luther  on  the  eucharist,  in  the  course  of  which  will  be 
brought  out  the  nuances  and  changes  in  his  doctrine, 
it  may  be  well  to  sum  up  the  constant  elements  in  it, 
and  their  sources.  These  are:  i.  Denial  that  the  mass 
is  a  good,  or  propitiatory  work.  2.  Denial  of  transub- 
stantiation.  3.  Assertion  of  a  real  presence  "with, 
under  and  in  the  bread,"  without  scrutinizing  the  mode 
of  this  presence.  The  words  "impanation"  and  "con- 
substantiation,"  coined  early  by  controversialists  to 
express  his  views,  are  not  found  in  his  own  writings, 
and  are  not  accepted  by  most  Lutherans.  In  The 
Babylonian  Captivity  (1520),  however,  he  quotes 
d'Ailly  in  a  way  that  shows  he  is  very  nearly  in  accord 
with  his  theory,  which  may  correctly  be  called  "con- 
substantiation."  ^  4.  Assertion  that  auricular  confes- 
sion, though  useful,  is  not  a  necessary  preparation  for 
communion.  5.  Advocacy,  in  general,  of  giving  the 
cup  to  the  laity. 

What  are  the  sources  and  what  is  the  general  char- 
acter of  this  position?  In  the  first  place  it  may  be  con- 
fidently asserted  that  Luther  neither  claimed  to  make, 
nor  made,  any  appeal  to  his  senses.  Reason  illumin- 
ated by  God  was  indeed,  said  he,  a  help,  but  possessed 
by   the   devil   it   was   a   hindrance.^     "Reason    is   the 

^Weimar,  vi.,  506.     Harnack,  Dogmengesch'tchte,  iii.  893,  note  i. 

2  Smith,  Luther,'^  p.  xii. 

3  Weimar,   Tischreden,  i.   no.  439. 


loo  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

devil's  bride,  who  adorns  herself  and  occupies  the 
church  and  thrusts  God's  word  out."  *  "If,  outside 
of  Christ,  you  wish  by  your  own  thoughts  to  know 
your  relation  to  God  you  will  break  your  neck.  Thun- 
der strikes  him  who  investigates.  It  is  Satan's  wisdom 
to  try  to  tell  what  God  is,  and  by  it  he  will  put  you  in 
the  abyss.  Therefore  keep  to  revelation  and  do  not 
try  to  understand."  °  Further  quotation  is  superfluous. 
It  has  often  been  recognized  that  the  Reformation  was 
in  point  of  dogma  a  singularly  conservative  movement.® 
Even  Harnack  admits  that  the  one  trenchant  reform 
Luther  did  make  in  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  that  of  the 
sacramental  system,  was  not  due  to  his  special  enlight- 
enment, but  to  "his  inner  experience  that  where  grace 
does  not  endow  the  soul  with  God,  the  sacraments  are 
an  illusion."  ^ 

But  when  a  doctrine,  for  which  no  unmistakable 
proof  could  be  found  in  Scripture,  appeared  to  him  not 
only  illogical,  but  absolutely  incomprehensible,  and 
immoral  as  well,  he  naturally  rejected  it.  Thus  his 
early  opposition  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  was  not 
due  to  any  philosophical  speculation  about  its  intrinsic 
impossibility,  but  to  the  fact  that  conditions  had 
changed  so  much  since  the  doctrine  grew  up  that  it 
became  almost  incomprehensible  to  him.  The  Cath- 
olic church,  indeed,  was  so  deeply  committed  to  the 
dogma  that  it  kept  on  repeating  the  words  asserting  it, 
long  after  their  original  import  had  been  totally  for- 
gotten. The  change  from  the  time  of  Paul,  whose 
language  and  thought  were  moulded  by  the  Mysteries, 

*  Weimar,  xlvii.  474. 
5  Weimar,  xlv.  96. 

^  E.  g.   by   Gibbon   and   Nietzsche,   quoted,   Smith,   Luther^   p.  xii ; 
Age  of  the  Reformation,  710  f,  730  ff. 
^  What  is  Christianity,  p.  279. 


LUTHER  loi 

or  of  Chrysostom  with  his  "priest  reddened  with  the 
blood  of  the  immolated  Christ,"  to  that  of  Aquinas  and 
Luther,  was  immense.  I  speak  of  the  former  because, 
though  he  did  not  reject  the  dogma,  the  very  light  em- 
phasis he  put  upon  it  shows  that  he  had  already  out- 
grown it.  Now  Luther,  like  Wyclif,  found  in  the  mass 
regarded  as  a  good  and  propitiatory  work,  a  cause  of 
scandal.  He  saw  that  it  was  the  chosen  instrument  of 
ecclesiastical  oppression.  The  masses  which  he  saw 
mumbled  at  Rome  at  the  rate  of  seven  an  hour  had  in 
them  as  little  religion  and  as  much  greed  as  possible.® 
Like  Wyclif,  he  therefore  denounced  them,  and,  as 
with  the  Englishman,  it  was  more  the  abusive  practice 
than  the  theory  that  moved  him,  for  while  he  varied 
as  to  whether  the  mass  should  be  called  a  sacrifice,  he 
never  wearied  of  inveighing  against  it  as  a  good  work 
and  one  repugnant  to  his  sola  fide.^ 

In  the  rejection  of  the  transubstantiation  Luther  had 
plenty  of  authority.  He  himself  mentions  as  sources 
the  Bohemians  ^°  and  Peter  d'Ailly.^^  The  word  was  \ 
not  found  in  Scripture  nor  in  the  earlier  doctors,  and 
it  was  really  the  word  that  he  objected  to.  In  like 
manner  he  disliked  the  German  word  for  Trinity 
(Dreifaltigkeit)  though  he  heartily  accepted  the  mys- 
tery.^^  Regarding  transubstantiation,  he  started  the 
legend,  still  repeated  today,"  that  it  came  from  Aris- 
totle's school.     This  error  contains  a  minute  particle 

^  Drews,   77. 

^  E.  Kroker,  p.  236. 

^'^  To  tf}e  German  Nobility,  Weimar,  vi.  456.  On  the  Bohemians 
as  a  source  for  Luther's  doctrine,  W.  Kohler:  Luther  und  die  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  1900,   p.   212. 

^^  Babylonian   Captivity,  Weimar  vi.   506. 

^2  Grisar,  ii.  574. 

13  H.  B.  Workman:  Christian  Thought  to  the  Reformation,  1911,  p. 
51. 


102  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

of  truth;  for  the  terminology  of  the  schoolmen  in  this 
as  in  other  things  was  colored  by  their  study  of  Aris- 
totle, but  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  itself,  was,  as 
shown  above,  an  inevitable  development  of  the  primi- 
tive Christian  realism.  The  word  transubstantiation 
sanctioned  by  the  Lateran  decree,  was  invented,  said 
Luther,  by  those  coarse  clowns  the  Thomists,  and 
should  really  be  called  "annihilation"  of  the  bread  and 
wine  into  Christ's  body.  Though  it  came  from  Aris- 
totle's school,  says  the  Reformer,  if  that  philosopher 
could  see  the  reasoning  of  his  disciples  he  would  say: 
"What  devil  has  led  such  gross  asses  and  fools  to  my 
books?  Don't  the  clowns  know  what  I  mean  by  sub- 
stance, subject  and  predicate?"  And  this  stricture, 
continues  Luther,  pleased  with  his  clever  imitation  of 
the  Stagyrite's  style,  would  be  true.^* 

The  reasons  why  Luther  should  retain  belief  in  the 
real  presence  after  having  discarded  the  official  explan- 
ation of  its  mode  are  obscure  only  to  those  who,  having 
come  themselves  to  consider  it  absurd,  fancy  that 
Luther  must  have  been  as  modern  as  are  they.  The 
first  of  these  reasons  was  that  he  had  the  whole  tradi- 
tion of  the  church  behind  him,  and  he  was  very  depend- 
ent on  tradition.  He  also  had  the  plain  words  of  the 
Bible,  "this  is  my  body,"  which  he  could  not  easily 
explain  away.  Though  in  most  respects  the  Reforma- 
tion was  not,  as  it  claimed  to  be,  the  return  to  a  prim- 
itive Christianity,  in  this  it  might  speciously  be  so 
called.  In  merely  accepting  the  real  presence  while 
refusing  to  speculate  upon  its  mode,  Luther  was  more 
Pauline  than  either  the  Catholics  with  their  philosophic 

^■^  Letter  to  Prince  George  of  Anhalt,  June  12,  1541,  Enders, 
xiii.  390. 


LUTHER  103 

explanations,  or  the  Zwinglians  with  their  philosophic  ; 
doubts.  He  himself  at  one  time  shared  the  latter,  • 
when,  as  he  expressed  it,  he  "felt  the  old  Adam" : 

I  freely  confess  [he  wrote]i5  that  if  Carlstadt  or  any  other  could 
have  convinced  me  .  .  .  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  sacrament 
but  bread  and  wine,  he  would  have  done  me  a  great  service.  I  was 
sorely  tempted  on  this  point  and  wrestled  with  myself  and  tried  to  y 
believe  that  it  was  so,  for  I«saw  that  I  could  thereby  give  the  hardest 
rap  to  the  papacy.  I  read  treatises  by  two  menis  who  wrote  more 
ably  in  defense  of  the  theory  than  has  Dr.  Carlstadt  and  who  did  not 
so  torture  the  word  to  their  own  imaginations.  But  I  am  bound;  I 
cannot  believe  as  they  do;  the  text  is  too  strong  for  me  and  will  not 
let  itself  be  wrenched  from  the  plain  sense  by  argument. 

One  powerful  motive  with  Luther  for  not  accepting  \ 
the  symbolical  interpretation  of  the  words  of  consecra-  j 
tion,  was  his  jealousy  of  Carlstadt,  who  had  been  the  | 
first  of  the  Wittenbergers  to  put  it  forward."     A  con- 
temporary  '^  is  justified  in  expressing  the  suspicion  tha-t 
Luther  would  have  held  this  opinion  "had  he  not  been 
prevented     [i.e.    anticipated]     by    this    Carolstadius, 
whome  the  wicked  arrogancy  of  his  stomake  could  not 
suffer  to  be  auctour  of  so  hye  a  heresye,  whereof  he 
coveted  him  selfe  to  have  been  father."   Indeed  Luther  \ 
himself  confesses,  "Carlstadt's  ranting  only  confirmed 
me  in  the  opposite  opinion."  '^ 

But  it  would  be  superficial  to  see  in  this  external 
motive  the  decisive  cause  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence.     This,   like  most  of  his   dogmas,  was 

15  Letter  to  Strassburg,  Dec,  1524,  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii, 
p.  277. 

16  Who  these  were  have  been  much  disputed.  Perhaps  Honius 
was  one,  and  perhaps  Lucas  von  Prag  the  other,  Kohler:  Luther  und 
die  Kirchengeschichte,  210. 

yW.     Kohler:     "Zum     Abendmahlstreit     zwischen     Luther     und 
Zwingli,"  Lutherstudien,  1917,   p.   116. 
1®  Barlowe,  Dialoge,  1553.     No  paging. 
19  Letter  to  Strassburg,  Dec,  1524,  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii,  277. 


104  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

deeply  rooted  in  his  own  subjective  need.  Theology, 
as  he  often  said,  was  for  him  not  a  speculative  but  a 
practical  science,  the  object  of  which  was  the  then  so 
seemingly  vital  one  of  winning  grace  and  of  escaping 
hell.  Luther  approached  all  questions  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  sorely  tried  conscience.^"  What  agonies 
he  went  through,  not  only  in  the  cloister  but  later,  by 
reason  of  dread  of  everlasting  torture  it  is  difficult  for 
us  to  imagine.  Luther  was  fairly  obsessed  by  it,^^  and 
groaned  in  spirit,  "Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the 
wrath  to  come?"  At  the  same  time,  he  undoubtedly 
had  a  sufficiently  disinterested  moral  sense  to  desire 
goodness  and  God's  favor  for  their  own  sake. 

Now,  considering  Luther's  training  and  deep  read- 
ing in  books  which  emphasized  the  importance  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  it  is  not  strange  that  he  came 
to  believe  that  these  and  these  alone  could  really  bring 
Christ  into  the  heart  of  the  believer,  and  make  him 
feel  certain  of  being  saved.  This  was  so  overwhelm- 
ingly needful  to  him,  that  he  made  the  real  presence  an 
article  of  the  standing  or  falling  church."  Wlthoiit 
something  supernatural  he  could  not  persuade  himself 
that  he  was  really  on  the  right  road.  With  him  "as- 
surance of  salvation  must  be  based  on  miracle  In  order 
to  be  certain;  but  this  miracle  must  be  one  occurring 
in  the  inmost  center  of  the  personal  life,  and  must  be 
clearly  intelligible  in  its  whole  intellectual  signifi- 
cance. .  .  The  sensuous  sacramental  miracle  is 
done  away  with,  and  in  its  stead  appears  the  miracle 
of  thought,  that  man  in  his  sin  and  weakness  can  grasp 
and  confidently  assent  to  such  a  thought.     That  is  the 

20  Graebke,  80;  Grisar,  ii.  790. 

^'^  American  Journal  of  Psychology,  1913,  July. 

22  Harnack,  Dogmengesch.,  iii.  889  ff. 


LUTHER  105 

end  of  priesthood  and  the  hierarchy,  the  sacramental 
communication  of  ethico-religious  powers."  " 

It  is  easy  to  deduce  the  consequences  of  this  position. 
Luther's  posture  remained  that  of  the  schoolman  who 
rejected  a  given  theory,  but  could  not  transcend  the 
scholastic  limitations  it  implied.^*  When  pushed  by 
Zwingli  he  had  to  invoke  one  "sophism"  —  as  he  him- 
self called  scholastic  postulates  —  after  another.  First 
he  borrowed  from  Scotus  "  the  theory  of  the  ubiquity 
of  Christ's  body,  and  to  justify  that  the  commimicatio 
idtomatum,  or  doctrine  that  the  divine  nature  of  Christ 
communicated  all  its  attributes  to  the  human  nature.^*' 
In  acknowledging  that  Christ's  body  was  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  while  asserting  that  that  hand  was  every- 
where," Luther  proved  too  much,  and  involved  him- 
self in  a  reductio  ad  absurdum^  for  then,  as  was 
promply  ^rrnteid  out,  the  body  would  be  in  every  com- 
mon meal. 

But  intellectual  confusion  was  not  the  only  evil  that 
Luther's  position  involved.  By  his  insistence  on  the 
necessity  of  partaking  of  the  body  and  blood,  he  made 
the  means  finally  more  important  than  the  goal.^^  He 
not  only  made  the  tyranny  of  dogma  unbearable,  but 
he  opened  the  door  to  the  opus  operatum,  to  formalism 
and  to  a  narrow  and  loveless  orthodoxy,  in  short  to  all 
those  things  which  at  other  times  he  attacked  so  vig- 
orously and  successfully  in  the  old  church. ^^ 

It  is  important  to  survey  Luther's  doctrine  historic- 

23  Troltsch,   192  f. 

2*  Scheel,  "Abendmahl,"  in  R.  G.  G.,  i.  70  ff. 

25  Duns  Scotus,  lib.  iv,  dist.  x,  quaest.  iii.  Wyclif  had  done  the 
same,  De  eucharistia,  p.  232. 

26  Well  set  forth  in  a  letter  of  Oct.  i,  1538,  Enders,  xii.  13  ff. 
2^  Weimar,  xxiii.  143. 

28  Troltsch,   193. 

29  Harnack,  Dogmengesch,  iii.  889  ff. 


io6  CHRISTIAN  JHEOPHAGY 

ally,  observing  how  it  first  advanced  and  then,  under 
the  influence  of  the  polemic  with  Zwingli,  retreated. 
u  The  whole  tendency  of  his  earlier  work  is  to  oppose 
the  Catholic  theory  of  the  automatic  pouring  in  of 
grace  by  the  sacraments,  and  to  make  faith  the  only 
essential.  This  is  evident  in  his  first  sermon  on  the 
eucharist,^°  of  151 8,  in  which  he  makes  the  "res"  of 
the  sacrament  unity  of  hearts.  In  15  19  he  issued  an- 
other sermon  On  the  Venerable  Sacrament  of  the  holy,, 
true  Body  of  Christ,^^  in  which,  basing  his  doctrine  on 
Biel,^^  he  makes  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ  the  "res." 
The  significance  of  the  rite,  which  he  compares  to  a 
contract  given  by  one  citizen  to  another,  he  finds  in  the 
community  of  believers  with  Christ. 

In  1520  he  reaches  the  most  advanced  position  he 
ever  attained.     In  his  Sermon  on  the  New  Testament, 
■^    that  is  on  the  Holy  Mass,^^  he  makes  the  "res"  of  the 
action  the  Word  of  God,  by  which  alone  is  granted 
\  forgiveness  of  sins.     He  lays  great  weight  on  the  mass 
as  a   "testament,"   defined  as  the  irrevocable  will  by 
which  a  man  leaves  his  goods  to  others.     To  this  will 
the  bread  and  wine  are  merely  the  seal  and  certifica- 
tion.    He  wishes  to  reduce  the  mass  to  the  form  ob- 
served by  Christ  and  the  apostles.     In  this  work  Luth- 
er distinctly  implies  that  the  actual  participation  in  the 
.  bread  and  wine  are  not  necessary  to  secure  their  ben- 
;  efits.      "Believe  and  thou  hast  eaten,"  he  repeats  from 
Augustine. 

About  the  same  time  he  attacked  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation.     In   his   Address    to    the    German 

^^  Sermo  de  digna  praeparattone  cordis  pro  suscipiendo  sacramento 
eucharistiae,  Weimar,  i.  325   ff. 
^1  Weimar  ii.  742  ff. 
^2  Graebke,   27   f. 
3^  Works,  i.  294  ff.     Weimar,  vi.353  ff. 


LUTHER  107 

Nobility  he  declares,  "it  is  not  an  article  of  faith  to 
believe  that  natural  bread  and  wine   are  not  in  thd 
sacrament  —  which  is  a  delusion  of  Aquinas  and  of  the 
pope  —  but  merely  to  believe  that  true   and  natural, 
flesh  and  blood  are  in  the  bread  and  wine."  ^*     In  hisi  "^ 
work  on   The  Babylonian  Captivity   of  the  Church  ^^ 
he  comes  as  near  defining  his  own  theory  of  the  mode 
of  Christ's  presence  as  he  ever  does,  though  he  states 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  comprehend  the  modes  of 
divine  action.      But  he  speaks  of  d'Ailly's  theory  of 
consubstantiation  in  a  way  that  shows  he  is  inclined  to 
it.     He  also  refers  to  Wyclif,  though  it  is  doubtful 
how  much  of  his  work  he  could  have  known  at  first 
hand.     He    observes   that   Paul    and   the    evangelists 
always  speak  of  the  bread  as  bread,  and  that  they  also 
speak  not  of  the  wine  but  of  the  cup,  which  could  not 
possibly  be  transubstantiated.     Why  could  not  Christ's  . 
body  be  contained  within  the  substance  of  the  bread,  ' 
he  asks,  as  well  as  in  the  accidents?     Borrowing  from 
Augustine  one  of  the  stock  similes  of  the  fathers,  he 
compares  the  mode  of  the  presence  to  that  of  fire  in 
red-hot  iron.^"     Here,   too,  he  emphasizes  his  belief 
that  the  essence  of  the  sacrament  is  the  word  of  God. 
Two  years  later,  when  he  had  begun  to  feel  pressure 
from  Carlstadt,  he  consistently  took  the  position  that 
one  should  not  investigate  the  mode  of  divine  opera- 
tion.     Don't  confuse  the  people  with  these  hair-split- 
tings, he  writes  Speratus,  nor  ask  whether  Christ  is 
present  with   "blood,   humanity,   divinity,   hair,   bone, 
and  skin."  " 

After  this  time  Luther's  conception  of  the  benefits 

^*  Weimar,  vi.  456. 

^^  Weimar   vi.   506   ff. 

^^  Weimar,  xi.  487  f. 

37  June  13,  1524,  Enders,  iii.  397.     Luther's  Correspondence,  ii,  127. 


io8  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

and  nature  of  the  sacrament  became  more  and  more 
material.  In  1523  the  body  and  blood  were  consid- 
ered the  object  of  the  ministering  word,  along  with 
forgiveness.  Two  years  later  they  were  made  the 
vehicles  of  forgiveness,  and  soon  afterwards  they  were 
stated  to  be,  along  with  forgiveness,  of  the  "res"  of 
the  sacrament.^^  In  his  Confession  on  Christ's  Supper 
(1528),  Luther  wrote:  "The  flesh  of  Christ  is  full 
of  divinity,  full  of  eternal  good,  life,  and  blessedness, 
and  who  takes  a  bit  of  the  flesh  takes  with  it  to  himself 
eternal  good,  life,  and  blessedness  and  all  that  is  in 
the  flesh."  ^^  From  this  it  was  but  a  step  to  the  mak- 
ing, in  1529,  the  body  and  blood  the  exclusive  "res," 
and  calling  forgiveness  a  mere  effect.  The  body  and 
blood  thus  completely  expelled  the  Word  as  the  vehicle 
of  forgiveness  and  forgiveness  as  the  "res"  of  the 
sacrament.*"  But  this  was  not  all.  As  Luther  grew 
older  and  the  fear  of  death  became  more  present  to 
him,  the  sacrament  appeared  to  him  more  and  more  in 
the  light  of  the  "medicine  of  immortality."  In  his 
sermons  of  1537  and  1538,  he  places  the  main  func- 
tion of  the  bread  and  wine  in  their  power  to  destroy 
death  and  assure  immortality.*^ 

Luther's  controversy  with  the  Catholics  on  the  sacra- 
ment was  on  three  points  besides  the  doctrines  of 
transubstantiation.  i.  The  denial  that  the  mass  was 
a  good  work.  2.  The  denial  that  confession  was  abso- 
lutely necessary  as  a  preliminary  to  communion.  3. 
The  giving  of  the  cup  to  the  laity. 

38  Graebke,  80. 

^^Ibid.,  64. 

^'^  Ibid.,  81.  Thus  in  his  polemics.  In  the  Catechism  of  1529, 
however,  we  find  a  partial  return  to  the  more  spiritual  view. 

41  Sermon  of  Oct.  29,  1537,  Buchwald,  186  ff;  or  July  28,  1538, 
ibid.,  436  ff. 


LUTHER  109 

In  15 1 8  Luther  still  considered  the  mass  a  sacrifice 
in  the  Catholic  sense. *^  In  the  following  year,  how- 
ever, he  protested,  In  the  Interest  of  his  sola  fide, 
against  the  theory  that  the  mass  was  a  good  work 
unless  accompanied  by  faith  and  love.  Instead  of  an 
opus  operatum  he  stated  that  it  should  be  an  opus 
operantis.^^  At  the  same  time  he  expressed  the  wish 
that  a  council  might  grant  communion  In  both  kinds  to 
the  laity.** 

Far  stronger  Is  his  Sermon  on  the  New  Testament 
of  1520.*^  There  he  considers  that  the  worst  abuse 
of  the  mass  is  to  call  It  a  sacrifice.  More  idolatry  is 
caused  by  it,  he  thinks,  than  was^  found  among  the  Jews. 
He  reprobates  private  masses,  the  offertory,  and  the 
idea  that  the  elevation  of  the  host  is  for  the  purpose 
of  offering  it  to  God,  rather  than  for  our  sake.  In  a 
certain  sense,  indeed,  the  service  may  be  called  an 
offering,  if  by  that  is  meant  that  in  It  we  offer  ourselves 
to  God.  He  denies  explicitly  that  masses  are  a  benefit 
to  souls  In  purgatory,  and  proposes  that  foundations 
for  masses  be  abolished.  This  Is  also  forcibly  rec- 
ommended in  the  Address  to  the  German  Nobility.*^ 
In  The  Babylonian  Captivity  he  presents  a  similar  posi- 
tion as  to  the  sacrifice  and  good  work,  and  demands 
that  mass  be  celebrated  in  the  vulgar  tongue.*^ 

The  Catholics  were  not  slow  In  taking  up  the  gaunt- 
let. Murner  wrote  to  show  that  the  mass  was  a  sacri- 
fice,   efficacious    for    living    and    dead.*^     The    bull 

42  In  a  sermon  printed,  Weimar,  i.  433  ff. 

43  Weimar,   ii.   751. 
^*Ibid.,  742. 

45  Weimar,  vi.  353  ff. 
4^  Weimar,  vi,  451. 
4'^  Weimar,  vi.  510,   516. 
48  Janssen,  ii.  168. 


no  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Exsurge  Domine,  in  article  i6,  condemned  the  pro- 
posal that  a  council  should  ordain  communion  in  both 
kinds.  To  this  Luther  replied  that  the  bull  had  sim- 
ply condemned  Paul,  that  Christ  had  commanded  all 
to  drink  of  the  cup,  and  that  if  a  council  delayed,  every 
man  should  take  the  matter  into  his  own  hands/^ 

Another  famous  refutation  of  Luther  is  the  Asser- 
t'lo  Septem  Sacramentorum,  written,  at  the  suggestion 
of  More  and  Wolsey,  and  with  much  help  from  More, 
Fisher  and  others,  by  Henry  VIII,  thence  called  De- 
fender of  the  Faith.'°  As  a  rebuttal  of  the  Babylonian 
Captivity,  it  takes  up  in  course  Luther's  doctrine  of  the 
mass.  The  logic  is  extraordinary.  In  proving  that 
the  mass  is  not  only,  as  Luther  calls  it,  a  testament  or 
promise,  the  author  shows  that  it  is  a  good  work,  that 
when  Christ  instituted  the  Supper  he  made  his  own 
flesh  and  blood  of  bread  and  wine,  and  that  the  priest 
now  does  the  same.  This  is  a  work,  exactly  as  when  a 
carpenter  makes  an  image  of  wood  he  does  a  work. 
But  what  Christ  does  is  good;  consequently  the  mass 
is  a  good  work.  If  Luther  objects  to  the  word  "tran- 
substantiation,"  Henry  says  nobody  will  trouble  him  to 
believe  that  if  only  he  will  believe  that  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  the  bread  is  converted  into  the  whole  sub- 

*9  Grund  und  Ursach  aller  Artikel  D.  M.  Luthers  so  durch 
romische  Bulle  unrechtlich  verdammt  sind,  1521,  V^^eimar,  vi.  390. 

50  Published  by  O'Donovan.  See  English  Historical  Revieiv,  1910, 
pp.  656  ff.  The  Babylonian  Captivity  was  spoken  of  by  Tun- 
stall  in  a  letter  to  Wolsey,  Jan.  21,  1521,  Luther's  Correspondence, 
i.  455  ff;  Henry  was  writing  his  refutation  in  April,  ibid.,  520,  and 
Calender  of  Carew  MSS,  1867,  no.  13.  In  1534  Henry  charged  that 
More  "by  subtle  sinister  slights  procured  and  provoked  him  to  set 
forth  a  book  of  the  Assertion  of  the  Seven  Sacraments."  Bridgett: 
More,  p.  221.  More  denied  authorship  but  confessed  that  he  had 
helped  Henry,  Life  by  Roper,  in  G.  Samson's  edition  of  the  Utopia, 
1910,  p.  247.  Cf.  also  More's  letter  to  Cromwell,  Feb.  or  March, 
1533,  JVorkes,  1557,  p.  1526. 


LUTHER  III 

stance  of  the  body,  and  the  whole  substance  of  the 
wine  into  the  whole  substance  of  the  blood.  How, 
asks  the  king,  can  the  heretic  pretend  to  rely  wholly 
on  Scripture,  when  he  finds  in  it  no  authority  for 
mingling  water  with  the  wine,  "for,"  says  he,  "I  imag- 
ine he  will  not  be  so  bold  as  to  omit  this  custom." 
Luther  replied,  and  the  battle  continued  to  be  waged 
with  great  ferocity  for  some  years,  but,  as  it  hardly 
developed  any  new  light  on  the  question  it  need  not  be 
further  followed  here. 

Quite  naturally  the  Catholics  made  the  most  of  Luth- 
er's utraquism,  hateful  to  Germans  because  of  the 
Hussite  wars,  at  the  Diet  of  Worms.  Aleander's 
speech  before  the  estates,  on  February  13,  1521,^^ 
especially  emphasized  this.  Luther,  after  his  appear- 
ance at  the  Diet,  had  a  long  argument  on  this  point 
and  on  transubstantiation,  with  Cochlaeus.  The  Cath- 
olic justified  his  tenets  by  quoting  Ambrose.  The  Wit-\  h  ; 
tenberg  professor  admitted  that  Ambrose  had  spoken  '^ 
of  a  change  in  the  elements,  but  denied  that  this  was 
transubstantiation.  Cochlaeus  illustrated  the  possibil- 
ity of  the  bread  being  the  body  by  comparing  it  with 
the  dogma,  incomprehensible  to  reason  but  firmly  held 
by  faith,  of  the  double  nature  of  the  God-man,  by 
which  divinity  was  humanity.  Luther  here  drew  a  fine 
distinction;  abstract  qualities,  like  divinity  and  human- 
ity, or  "breadhood  and  bodyhood,"  might  be  equated, 
even  if  rationally  incommensurable,  but  not  concrete 
things,  like  "bread"  and  "body."  Cochlaeus  main- 
tained that  the  copula  had  the  same  force  whether  it 
united  abstract  or  concrete  terms,   and  that  the  pro- 

51  Forstemann:  Nciies  Urkundenbuch,  1842,  i.  30  ff.     Smith,  Luther; 
109,  with  misprint  "February  18"  for  "February   13." 


112  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

osltion  about  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  on  a  par,  as 
far  as  reason  was  concerned,  with  such  equations  as, 
"horse  is  ass,"  "white  is  black,"  "Cochlaeus  is  table."  "^ 

While  at  the  Wartburg  Luther  wrote  On  the  Abuse 
of  the  Mass.^^  After  laying  down  his  principle  that 
only  Scripture  is  authoritative,  and  not  the  usage  of  the 
church  or  the  decisions  of  the  pope  or  of  the  universi- 
ties of  Paris  and  Louvain,  "with  their  dear  sisters 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,"  he  subjects  the  ecclesiastical 
idea  of  a  priesthood  to  a  withering  criticism.  Main- 
taining, as  he  had  in  the  Address  to  the  German  No- 
bility, the  priesthood  of  all  believers,  he  cries,  "Come, 
noble  parsons,  show  by  one  single  point  or  line  in  all 
the  Gospels  or  Epistles  why  you  should  be  called 
priests  before  other  Christian  men."  In  the  second 
part  of  the  work  he  examines  carefully  the  accounts  of 
the  Last  Supper  in  the  first  three  Gospels  and  in  i 
Corinthians  and  shows  that  the  bread  and  wine  were 
never  called  a  sacrifice.  He  who  does  so  falls  under 
the  curse  of  Scripture  against  those  who  add  to  the 
words  of  that  book. 

The  preface  to  this  work,  and  letters  of  the  same 
period,  show  that  Luther  was  pleased  with  the  steps 
taken  at  Wittenberg,  in  their  earlier  stages,  both  to 
abolish  private  masses  ^*  and  to  institute  a  simple  com- 
munion service. ^^  When,  however,  in  a  manner  pres- 
ently to  be  described,  Luther  saw  that  the  reforms  at 
Wittenberg  went  considerably  beyond  his  own  views, 

52  All  this  rests  on  a  letter  from  Cochlaeus  to  "George"  dated 
June  12,  1521,  and  first  published  in  1540.  J.  Kiihn:  Luther  und  der 
JVormser  Reichstag.    Leipzig  n.  d.  pp.  95  ff. 

53  In  Latin,  Weimar,  viii.  411   ff;   in  German,   ibid.,  482   ff. 
5*  To  Spalatin,  Oct.  7,   1521,  Enders,  iii.  236. 

55  To  Melanchthon,  August  1,  1521,  Enders,  iii.  205  ff.  Luther's 
Correspondence,  ii.  49  f. 


LUTHER  113 

he  was  both  alarmed  at  the  outbreak  of  independent 
and  subjective  reHgion  and  nettled  that  others  seemed 
to  be  wresting  the  leadership  from  him.      Returning, 
therefore,   from   the   Wartburg  in   March,    1522,   he 
abolished  the  communion  service  started  by  Carlstadt 
and    Melanchthon,    and   reintroduced   the    mass   with 
almost  all  the  old  forms.     As  Carlstadt  had  objected 
to  the  word  "mass,"  Luther  said  he  would  use  it  for 
that  very  reason.      Forgetting  the  anathemas  he  had 
launched  against  those  who  added  to  Scripture  by  call- 
mg  the  host  a  sacrifice,  he  says  that  now,  "to  spite  the 
mob-spirits,"  he  will  "dub  the  sacrament  anew  a  sacri- 
fice, not  that  I  hold  it  for  a  sacrifice,  but  that  the  devil, 
who  is  the  god  of  this  mob-spirit,  may  beware  of  me." 
In  like  manner  he  reinstated  the  elevation  of  the  host, 
remarking  that  both  the  command  to  elevate,  by  the 
pope,  and  the  prohibition  to  do  so,  by  Carlstadt,  were 
infringements  of  Christian  liberty.^''     He  was  in  a  sad 
dilemma,  for  he  wished  to  give  it  up  to  "go  against  the 
papists,"  and  to  retain  it  "to  go  against  and  annoy  the 
devil."     He   finally   decided  that  the   latter  was   the 
more  important  duty,  for,  says  he,  "I  would  not  then, 
nor  will  I  now,  allow  the  devil  to  teach  me  anything 
m  my  church."     He  even  says  that  if  necessary  he  will 
have  the  host  elevated  three,  seven  or  ten  times."     He 
also   defended  the  use  of  Latin  in  the  service  by  a 
questionable  reference  to  i   Cor.  xiv.  26  ff.^^ 

In  the  service  as  restored  by  him  the  words  of  the 
canon  of  the  mass  importing  sacrifice  were  omitted. 
Private   masses   were    also    suppressed.     Communion 

56  Barge,  ii.  270. 

llSJort  Confession  of  1545,  Erlangen,  xxxii,  420,  422. 

5»Grisar,  ii.  330. 


114  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

was  administered  in  one  or  both  kinds  according  to  the 
preference  of  the  recipient. ^^  The  bread,  however, 
was  put  in  the  layman's  mouth,  as  by  the  Cathohc 
priest,  not  in  his  hand,  as  by  Carlstadt.*''^  At  this  time 
Luther  laid  down  the  principle  that  in  the  matter  of 
utraquism  charity  was  the  supreme  law,  and  that  one 
should  not  argue  whether  it  is  against  the  pope  or  not, 
but  only  whether  Christians  have  a  right  to  communi- 
cate as  they  please.*'^  But  two  years  later  he  wrote 
that  if  anyone  was  persuaded  that  communion  under 
both  kinds  was  commanded  by  Christ,  he  would  better 
take  it  that  way  or  not  at  all.^^  In  later  years  he  be- 
came more  insistent  that,  even  at  the  risk  of  persecu- 
tion, lay  Christians  should  insist  on  receiving  the  cup.*^^ 
When  Luther  came  to  think  out  the  application  of 
his  principles  to  liturgies,  he  produced  a  work  on  the 
subject  called  The  Formula  of  Mass  and  Communion^^ 
In  this  he  confesses  to  great  conservatism  on  account 
of  weaker  brethren.  Nothing  should  be  changed  ex- 
cept what  was  counter  to  the  Bible.  He  accordingly 
left  the  introitus,  the  Kyrie  eleison,  the  collects,  the 
graduale,  the  use  of  candles  and  incense  if  desired,  and 
the  usual  closing  benedictions  and  prayers.  He  re- 
moved those  prayers  and  that  part  of  the  canon,  the 
offertory,  importing  a  sacrifice,  and  he  altered  the 
words  of  institution  to   agree  more  closely  with  the 

59  Kostlin-Kawerau,  i.  511. 

^°  Ibid.,  505  f.  Mr,  George  Plimpton  of  New  York  has  an  early 
illustrated  Lutheran  Catechism,  showing  the  priest  putting  the  wafer 
into  the  communicant's  mouth. 

^1  On  Taking  the  Communion  in  both  Kinds,  Weimar,  x.,  part  ii, 
pp.  II  ff. 

^2  To  Spalatin,  April  4,  1524,  Enders,  iv.  316. 

63  To  Barbara  Liskirchen,  1535,  Enders,  x.  136;  to  G.  Curio,  1533, 
Enders,  ix.  300;  cf.  also  Enders,  ix.  40,  181,  221,  290. 

6*  Weimar,  xii,  205  flP. 


LUTHER  115 

gospel.  The  self-communion  of  the  priest  was  al- 
lowed, as  well  as  vestments  and  all  rites  not  expressly 
prohibited  by  Scripture.  Auricular  confession  was  not 
to  be  required,  though  it  was  considered  useful,  as  a 
preparation  for  the  sacrament,  but  any  notorious  of- 
fender was  to  be  excluded  from  the  altar.  Commun- 
ion was  to  be  administered  in  both  kinds,  as  sufficient 
indulgence  had  already  been  shown  weak  consciences 
in  that  matter. 

On  October  19,  1525,  the  service  was  first  celebrated 
by  Luther  in  German.''^  The  following  year,  under 
the  name  German  Mass,  he  published  an  order  of 
divine  service  not  unlike  that  now  in  use  in  Protestant 
churches.*'*' 

The  polemic  against  the  Catholics  continued. 
Masses  for  souls  were  abolished  at  Wittenberg,  and 
the  income  for  them  applied  to  the  university.**^  In 
1524  Luther  wrote  a  work  surpassing  all  previous  ones 
in  violence,  The  Abomination  of  the  Private  Mass, 
called  the  Canonf'^  He  said  that  celebrating  the  mass 
was  worse  than  cursing  God  on  the  streets.  He  was 
even  inclined  to  see  in  it  one  chief  cause  for  what  he 
regarded  as  an  unmitigated  evil,  the  peasants'  revolt,®^ 
Naturally,  when  the  Reformation  was  introduced  into 
Hesse,  in  1526,  the  canon  of  the  mass  and  all  words 
implying  that  it  was  a  sacrifice  were  suppressed.^*' 

Many  Catholics  answered  Luther,  among  the  first 

^^  "On  October  19,  1525,  they  first  began  to  sing  the  German  Mass 
at  Wittenberg  in  my  presence."  Collectanea  von  Gerard  Gelden- 
haiier,  ed.  Prinsen,  1901,  p.  80.  , 

^^  Smith,  Luther,  p.  230.     Weimar,  xix.  70  ff. 

®7  Enders,  -v*.  10  f,  Smith,  Luther,  184,  220.  Luther's  Correspondence, 
ii,  247  fF;  also  154  f,  160,  173  f,  192,  207  f,  260  ff. 

^8  Weimar,  xviii.  22  ff. 

^^  Erlangen,  xxvi.   i    ff. 

TOKidd,  224. 


ii6  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Jerome  Emser/^  John  Eck,  in  a  work  entitled  Answer 
to  Luther's  Abomination  against  the  holy  Private 
Mass,  found  it,  according  to  a  modern  Catholic  writer, 
"almost  superfluous  to  prove  how  untenable  were 
Luther's  assumptions."  "  Cochlaeus  made  a  more 
serious  effort  to  rebut  the  heretic  from  Scripture, 
though  practically  all  he  could  say  was  that  the  Bible 
never  denied  that  the  mass  was  a  sacrifice  and  a  good 
work,  and  never  called  it  sin  or  idolatry.  Cochlaeus's 
wrath  was  moved  by  the  "wretched  German  mass  with 
barbarous  rites  and  falsified  or  abridged  canon,"  pre- 
dicting that  there  would  soon  be  as  many  diverse 
masses  as  there  were  individuals." 

Earnest  efforts  were  made  to  reconcile  Catholics  and 
Lutherans  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  1530.  So  anxious 
was  Melanchthon  to  attain  this  end  that  he  called  God 
to  witness  he  would  sacrifice  union  with  the  Zwinglians 
to  it.^*  Jonas  and  others  drew  up  a  memorial  on 
private  masses  in  terms  as  conciliatory  as  possible. ^^ 
Another  memorial  of  the  Saxon  theologians  on  the 
eucharist  was  phrased  in  Catholic  terms.  The  real 
presence  was  strongly  affirmed,  as  was  the  use  of  the 
sacrament  in  preserving  the  body  and  soul  of  believers 
unto  eternal  life.^^ 

The  original  form  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  read 

•before  the  Diet  on  June  25,    1530,   is  unfortunately 

lost."     We  know,   however,   that  it  was   couched  in 

■^1  Defence  of  the  Mass  of  Christians  against  Luther's  Formula 
of  the  Mass,  1524.     G.  Kawerau:  H.  Emser,  1898,  p.  44. 

^2  In  1525;   Grisar,  ii.  807. 

■^3  Cochlaeus,  art.  366. 

'^*  Schirrmacher,  247.  ' 

^^Ibid.,  136  ff. 

"^^Ibid.,  112  ff. 

^^  Ficker  speaks  of  a  copy  of  the  original,  handed  to  Eck,  then  sent 
to  Trent,  and  now  rediscovered,  in  his  article  in  Geschichtliche 
Studien  A.  Hauck  dargebracht,  1915. 


LUTHER  117 

extremely  conciliatory  terms.  Even  after  Luther  had 
seen  and  approved  It,  Melanchthon  altered  the  word- 
ing to  make  It  more  acceptable  to  Catholics.  That 
Article  13,  on  the  eucharist,  was  substantially  Catholic 
may  be  safely  Inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  Catholic 
Refutation  found  not  one  objection  to  make  to  It.^* 
As  published  In  1531  the  Confession,  though  probably 
stiffened,  is  mild  enough.  It  disclaims  as  a  calumny 
the  charge  that  the  Lutherans  do  not  celebrate  mass; 
on  the  contrary  all  the  old  ceremonies  are  said  to  be 
kept  except  that  some  German  is  added  to  Instruct  the 
people,  according  to  Paul's  precept.  Communion  in: 
both  kinds  Is,  however,  demanded,  and  the  abuse  of  the 
private  mass  as  a  good  work,  denounced." 

It  really  appeared  that  this  last  point  was  the  only 
one  left  In  debate,  and  even  on  this  harmony  at  one 
time  seemed  possible.  The  Catholic  protagonist,  Eck, 
wrote :  "Let  not  a  verbal  contention  arise  over  the 
words  'offering,'  'victim,'  and  'sacrifice'  .  .  .  for 
in  the  Old  Testament  Christ  was  offered  in  the  pas- 
chal lamb  figuratively  or  typically;  on  the  cross  in  his 
passion  (passlbiliter)  when  he  offered  himself  to  the 
Father  for  our  sins;  and  daily  In  the  mass  Is  he  offered 
mystically  and  representatively  In  memory  of  his  pas- 
sion and  oblation  once  made  on  the  cross.  Thus  thej 
mass  Is  not  a  bloody  victim  but  a  mystic  and  represen- 
tative one."  ^^  It  was  accordingly  agreed  by  the  Prot- 
estants to  call  the  mass  a  sacrifice  if  the  word  were 
qualified  with  the  term  'commemorative,"  in  return  for 
which  the  Catholics  conceded  communion  in  both  kinds 

''^  R.   G.    G.,  i.   74;   Harnack:  Dogmengeschichte,  Hi.   670,   note   3; 
Smith,  Luther,  257.     Smith,  The  Age  of  Reformation,  p.   117. 
79Kidd,  271  ff. 
^°  Articulus  de  missa,  August  21,  1530,  Kidd,  296. 


ii8  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

provided  it  were  taught  that  this  was  a  matter  of 
convenience  rather  than  of  principle.®^ 

It  then  seemed  that  the  private  mass  was  the  only 
bone  of  contention  left.  On  this  both  parties  were 
obstinate,  for  it  touched  the  most  fundamental  of  all 
differences  between  them,  that  expressed  in  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  only.  Luther  defined  the 
difficulty  of  agreement  in  these  words:  "Campeggio 
said  that  before  he  would  let  the  mass  be  taken  from 
him  he  would  let  himself  be  broken  on  the  wheel;  I 
said  that  before  I  would  defend  that  mass,  I  would 
let  myself  be  burned  to  ashes,  and  more."  ^^ 

The  year  after  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  Cardinal  Ca- 
jetan  published  one  of  the  most  influential  of  all  the 
Catholic  apologies  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass.®^  He 
proved  it  primarily  by  citing  the  words  (Luke  xxii.  19, 
I  Cor.  xi.  24  f )  :  "Hoc  facite  in  meam  commemora- 
tionem,"  and  emphasizing  the  word  "facite."  Christ 
does  not  say,  "dicite,"  but,  "facite,"  "do,"  or  "make 
this,"  and  what  he  wishes  to  make  in  his  body  by  im- 
molation ("facere  corpus  Christi  immolando  seu  per 
modum  immolationis.")  This  sacrifice  does  not  im- 
pair the  unique  value  of  the  death  on  the  cross. 

On  the  other  side  Luther  came  out  with  a  treatise 
on  Private  Masses  and  Parsons'  Ordination.^*  It  is 
couched  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  with  the  devil,  a 
method  chosen,  as  he  explains  to  a  friend,  in  order  to 

81  Smith,  Luther,  261. 

82  Smith  and  Gallinger,  143 ;  the  same  thought  in  Lauterbachs 
Tagebuch  auf  des  Jahr  1538,  p.  24,  and  in  the  Schmalaldic  Articles, 
Weimar,  vol.  50,  p.  204. 

83  Card.  Cajetani  Adversus  tuiheranos  juxta  Scripturam  tractaius. 
De  sacraficio  missae.  De  commtinione.  Coloniae.  1531.  Analysed  by 
Lauchert,  162  ff. 

8*  Weimar,  xxxviii.  171  ff. 


LUTHER  119 

bring  home  to  the  papists  the  full  horror  of  their  posi- 
tion, when,  at  the  moment  of  death,  they  will  them- 
selves unable  to  answer  the  accusations  of  the  Adver- 
sary.^^ The  realism  of  the  picture  is,  however,  extra- 
ordinary; Luther  describes  how,  on  the  appearance  of 
Satan,  his  heart  stopped  beating,  sweat  broke  out  on 
his  brow,  and  he  understood  how  men  had  been  found 
dead  in  their  beds.  Supported  as  this  passage  is  by 
numerous  sayings  in  the  table  talk  describing  conversa- 
tions with  the  devil,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Re- 
former objectified  his  foe  in  a  very  literal  manner.^*' 
The  substance  of  the  work  is  the  most  complete  repud- 
iation of  the  Catholic  position  Luther  ever  attained. 

As  time  went  on,  Luther  frequently  reckoned  the 
mass  the  greatest  impiety,®^  or  said  that  he  would 
rather  be  a  whoremonger  and  thief  than  have  blas- 
phemed Christ  with  masses  for  fifteen  years. ^^  The 
Schmalkaldic  articles  of  1537  stated  that  the  mass,  con- 
sidered as  a  good  work,  was  a  horror  and  ought  to  be 
abolished,  together  with  all  endowments  for  the  same.^^ 
"This  dragon's  tail,  the  mass,  has  begotten  on  every- 
thing much  vermin  and  many  maggots."  ^'^  At  a 
debate  held  at  Wittenberg  an  January,  1536,  it 
was  argued  that  if,  as  Paul  said,  i  Cor.  xv.  29, 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  might  be  celebrated  for 
the  dead,  the  sacrament  of  the  eucharist  might 
be  so  used  also.  Luther  could  only  reply  to  this 
by  a  well-meaning,  but  mistaken,  exegesis  of  the 
verse   in  question.      Paul   did  not  speak,   said  he,   of 

85  To  Hausmann,  Dec.  17,  1533,  Enders  ix.  363. 

^^  American  Journal  of  Psychology,  July,  1913,  pp.  3^5  ff- 

87  Smith  and  Gallinger,  145. 

88  Erlangen,  Ix.  106. 

89  Smith,  Luther,  307. 

90  Weimar,  50,  200  ff,  204. 


120  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

baptism  for  the  dead,  but  over  {virip)  the  dead,  and  he 
explained  this  by  alleging  that  it  was  the  ancient  cus- 
tom, in  order  to  symbolize  the  life-giving  powers  of 
baptism,  to  hold  the  infant  over  a  corpse  while  applying 
the  holy  water  to  him !  ^^ 

On  December  5,  1538,  Luther  said:  "I  very  much 
doubt  whether  the  sacrament  is  in  the  private  mass,  for 
in  it  the  commandment  of  God  is  unheeded,  and  they 
change  the  sacrament  into  a  sacrifice.  They  celebrate 
no  communion^  but  keep  a  solitary  silence.  The  priest 
celebrates  it  alone,  which  is  against  the  meaning  of  the 
word  communion.  I,  however,  do  not  wish  to  con- 
demn their  comprehensive  and  ancient  abuse.  If  the 
papists  do  it,  let  them  defend  it  and  answer  for  it. 
We  do  not  wish  to  be  in  their  danger."  °^ 

But  in  regard  to  calling  the  mass  a  sacrifice  and 
adoring  the  host,  Luther  was  far  from  consistent.  In 
1536  he  expressly  conceded  that,  if  publicly  and  rightly 
done,  the  eucharist  was  a  sacrifice. ^^  Even  in  a  Ro- 
manist church,  he  said,  at  a  public  mass  he  would  adore 
the  host.^*  In  his  Theses  against  Lotivain,  December, 
1544,  he  expressly  admitted  that  the  sacrament  of  the 
altar  should  be  adored.^^  Perhaps  his  general  position 
is  best  expressed  in  a  letter  of  1538,®^  saying  that  the 
eucharist  was  not  primarily  instituted  for  adoration,  but 
could  properly  be  adored  as  the  Saviour's  person. 

While  Luther  himself  continued  to  grow  more  reac- 

91  Drews,   88. 

^^  Lauterbach's   Tagehuch  auf  das  Jahr  153^,  hg.  von  J.  K.  Seide- 
mann,  1872,  p.  187. 
^3  Drews,  76. 

9*  Smith  and  Gallinger,  §  35. 
95  Thesis  16,  quoted  Kostlin-Kawerau,  ii.  610. 
9fi  To  Francis  von  Rhewa,  Enders,  xii.  13  ff. 


LUTHER  121 

tlonary,  the  polemic  against  the  CathoHcs,  carried  on 
by  the  younger  strength  of  Melanchthon  and  Calvin, 
grew  less  and  less  conciliatory.  The  form  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  issued  by  Melanchthon  in  1540, 
known  as  the  Variata,  reflects  the  shift  of  his  opinion 
away  from  the  Catholic  to  the  Zwinglian  side.  At  the 
same  time  a  memorial  drawn  up  by  the  Wittenbergers, 
while  denying  that  the  mass  was  a  meritorious  work  or 
an  opus  operatum,  disclaimed  on  the  other  hand  the 
proposition  that  it  was  a  mere  rehearsal,  like  the  play 
of  the  death  of  Caesar,^^ 

The   attempt   to    reconcile   the   two   confessions    at 
Ratisbon  in  1541  achieved  less  than  the  similar  attempt  ! 
at   Augsburg   eleven   years    earlier.     The   conference 
was  wrecked  on  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  Cal- 
vin  and   Melanchthon,  with  their  fellow   Protestants 
who  were  present,  denied  not  only  transubstantiation, 
but  any  true  change  in  the  elements  whatever.     They 
said  that  the  body  was  present  only  to  communicants 
and  that  veneration  of  the  host  was  idolatrous.     In| 
both  these  positions  they  were  at  variance  with  Luther  j 
no  less  than  with  the  pope.     The  legate  Contarini  was' 
astonished  at  these  novel  heresies,  which  he  had  not! 
found  in  the  Confession  or  Apology  of    1530.     He| 
proposed  that  if  the  Protestants  would  allow  transub-l 
stantiation,  the  Catholics  should  abstain  from  venera- 
tion of  the  host,  but  his  opponents  refused  this  com- 
promise.^* 


^■^  Enders,  xii.   351   ff. 

9s  Pastor-Kerr,   xi.  444   f;   Kidd,   343;    Calvin   to   Farel,   Gilchrist, 
i.  261. 


VI.    CARLSTADT 

During  Luther's  year  at  the  Wartburg  the  leader- 
ship of  the  reform  movement  at  Wittenberg  fell  to 
I  Andrew  Bodenstein  of  Carlstadt,  a  man  of  good  in- 
tentions and  clear  brain,  offset  by  a  certain  flightiness. 
In  his  earlier  writings  on  the  sacrament  he  agreed  sub- 
stantially with  Luther,  especially  in  his  repudiation  of 
the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  as  a  "masterpiece  of  the 
devil."  In  the  Old  Testament,  said  he,  no  ox  nor 
other  animal  was  ever  slaughtered  more  than  once,  and 
therefore  Christ  could  not  be  immolated  more  than 
once.  The  intention  to  do  so,  however,  made  the 
priests  his  murderers,  Pharisees,  and  robbers  turning 
the  house  of  God  into  a  den  of  blood. ^ 

Like  Luther,  Carlstadt  emphasized  faith  as  the  all 
important  element  in  the  sacrament.  In  particular  he 
thought  of  the  bread  as  the  sign  of  resurrection  and 
the  blood  as  the  sign  of  forgiveness.  In  1521  he  still 
believed  in  the  real  presence. 

In  June  of  this  year,  however,  after  returning  from 
a  trip  to  Denmark,  he  began  thoroughly  to  purge 
Wittenberg  of  the  old  leaven  of  Roman  doctrine.  In 
this  he  was  ably  seconded  by  Gabriel  Zwilling,  an  Au- 
gustinian  friar,  and  by  Philip  Melanchthon.  Their 
reforms,  which  included  an  attack  on  sacerdotal  celi- 
bacy, and  important  measures,  cannot  be  here  described 
save  as  they  affect  the  communion  service. 

1  Barge,  ii.  85  ff. 


CARLSTADT  123 

It  was  apparently  Zwilling  who  first  assailed 
the  mass,  and  with  such  vigor  that  he  was  dubbed 
by  his  hearers  a  second  Luther.  He  declared 
that  he  would  never  hear  another  mass,  for  no  sin 
could  make  God  angrier.  The  sin  consisted  partly  in 
calling  the  mass  a  sacrifice,  partly  in  adoring  the  host. 
As  the  bread  was  a  mere  sign,  to  adore  it  would  be 
both  idolatry  and  as  foolish  as  it  would  have  been  for 
the  Jews  to  adore  the  rainbow  or  circumcision,  both 
signs  of  a  divine  covenant.  Communion  under  both 
kinds  was  introduced.  On  September  29  in  the  Parish 
Church,  Melanchthon,  a  layman,  and  his  pupils,  re- 
ceived the  sacramental  cup."  As  nearly  as  possible 
the  service  was  restored  to  primitive  custom,  the  priest 
reciting  the  words  of  the  gospel.  In  this  Melanchthon 
believed  he  was  following  the  line  laid  down  by  Luth- 
er.^ 

On  October  13,  masses  ceased  to  be  celebrated  in  the 
Augustinian  friary,  and  in  their  place  a  preaching  ser- 
vice was  held  by  Zwilling.  On  that  day,  for  two  hours 
in  the  morning  and  for  another  hour  in  the  afternoon, 
he  denounced  the  abuse  of  the  mass  so  forcibly  that  his 
numerous  audience  was  astonished.  Four  days  later  a 
learned  debate  on  the  subject  was  held  under  the  pres- 
idency of  Carlstadt.* 

On  October  20  Jonas,  Carlstadt,  Melanchthon  and 
others  drew  up  a  memorial  to  justify  their  opinions  to 
the  Elector  Frederic.  They  stated  that  they  had  abol- 
ished private  masses  because  Paul  forbade  them  to  the 

2  Ulscenius  to  Capito,  Oct.  6,  1521,  A.  R.  G.,  vi.  174  f.  Helmann 
to  John  Hess,  Oct.  8,  ibid.,  175   ff;  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii.  59  f. 

■-'Melanchthon  to  Link,  Oct.  9,  A.  R.  G.,  181  ff ;  Luther's  Corres- 
pondence, ii,  60  f. 

*Burer  to  Beatus  Rhenanus,  Oct.  19,  1521,  A.  R.  G.,  vi.  192  ff; 
Luther's  Correspondence,  ii,  62  f. 


124  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Corinthians  {cf.  i  Cor.  xi.  21,  to  IZlov  Sei-Ti-vov) ,  and  be- 
cause the  essence  of  the  sacrament  is  comrnunion,  i.e. 
fellowship.  Christ,  said  they,  gave  the  cup  to  the 
laity.  Private  masses  they  called  the  greatest  sin  on 
earth,  impossible  to  be  applied  for  the  souls  of  others 
any  more  than  one  man  can  be  baptized  for  another. 
The  Elector  was  begged  to  abolish  the  superstitious 
foundations  by  which  impure  priests  make  money  by 
saving  mass.^ 

On  November  i  the  parish  priest  of  Wittenberg 
gave  the  sacrament  in  both  kinds  to  all  the  people, 
young  and  old.^  On  the  same  day  the  provost  (Justus 
Jonas)  preached  against  masses  for  souls  with  "mock- 
ing, sharp  words,"  saying  that  he  would  give  all  his 
goods  to  abolish  such  foundations.^ 

All  this  seed  fell  upon  such  good  ground  that  on 
December  3  the  people  armed  with  knives  and  stones 
drove  away  priests  celebrating  mass  from  the  parish 
church.  On  the  following  day  the  students  destroyed 
an  altar  in  a  Franciscan  convent.  This  was  too  much 
for  the  Elector  Frederic,  who  rebuked  his  officers  for 
allowing  the  disturbance.  A  worse  riot  followed  on 
the  arrest  of  the  offenders,  for  on  December  12  the 
people  went  to  the  officers  and  demanded  their  release.^ 
Luther  also  disapproved  of  such  methods,  and  made 
a  short  and  secret  visit  to  Wittenberg  early  in  Decem- 
ber. He  did  nothing,  however,  save  interview  a  few 
friends. 

A  bitter  struggle  now  set  in  between  the  innovators 
and  the   conservatives.     The   latter   appealed   to   the 

^  A.  R.  G.,  vi.  195  ff;  Kidd,  97  S. 

6  Barge,  ii.  547. 

^  Barge,  ii.  548. 

8  Smith,  Luther,  136;  A.  R.  G.,  vi.  270. 


CARLSTADT  125 

Elector,  begging  him  not  to  hurry  his  reforms,  and  to 
find  out  what  Luther  thought  of  them.^  In  reply  the 
reformers  pointed  out  that  even  if  the  law  supported 
the  old  constitution,  yet  religion  forbade  the  howling 
of  masses  night  and  day.^° 

On  Christmas  day  Carlstadt  celebrated  an  evangelic 
communion  service  more  radical  than  anything  prev- 
ious. He  announced  that  confession  would  not  be  re- 
quired, nor  would  preparatory  fasting.  He  even  al- 
lowed men  who  had  been  drinking  brandy  to  commun- 
icate, and,  so  the  Catholics  stated,  to  carry  the  bread 
home  to  their  wives. ^^  Instead  of  putting  the  bread 
in  the  mouths  of  the  communicants,  as  usual,  he  allowed 
them  to  take  it  in  their  hands,  by  which  some  of  it  fell 
on  the  floor.  All  of  this  was  a  terrible  scandal  to  the 
Catholics. ^^ 

Early  in  April  Carlstadt  proposed  that  instead 
of  "mass"  the  service  should  be  called  "The  Lord's 
Supper."  ^^  Among  other  reforms  introduced  by  him 
or  his  friends  was  that  of  giving  communion  to  chil- 
dren, according  to  the  most  ancient  custom.^* 

The  innovations  of  the  Wittenbergers  caused  un- 
easiness among  the  Catholics  of  neighboring  lands.  On 
January  20,  1522,  the  Imperial  Council  of  Regency  at 
Nuremberg  passed  a  mandate  forbidding  the  celebra- 
tion of  mass  in  new  ways,  without  the  regular  cere- 
monies or  dress.     It  also  forbade,  pending  the  deci- 

9  J.  Dolsch  to  Elector  Frederic,  Dec.  13,  A.  R.  G.,  vi.  295. 

10  Carlstadt,  Melanchthon  and  others  to  C.  Beyer,  Dec.  12,  ibid., 
279. 

11  Said  of  Zwilling,  Jan.  12,  1522.  George  Helts  Briefivechsel,  ed. 
Clemen,  1907,  p.  11. 

^-A.  R.  G.,  vi.  387.    Barge,  ii.  616. 

13  Barge,  ii.  563. 

1*  Barge,  AktenstUke,  4,  note. 


126  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

slon  of  a  council,  utraquism  and  the  communion   of 
children/^ 

Though  he  was  not  influenced  by  this  decree, 
'Luther,  on  his  return  to  Wittenberg,  March  6,  1522, 
acted  as  if  he  had  been  sent  to  execute  it.  He  im- 
mediately suppressed  all  the  reforms  instituted  by 
others,  and  soon  made  the  town  too  hot  to  hold  those 
who  would  not,  like  Melanchthon,  instantly  come  to 
heel.  Carlstadt  migrated  to  Orlamunde,  as  parish 
priest,  and  here  he  wrote  a  series  of  pamphlets  pro- 
pounding the  theory  that  the  bread  and  wine  were 
merely  symbols,  and  not,  in  any  real  sense,  the  body 
and  blood  of  Jesus.  One  of  these  tracts  was  com- 
pleted in  the  latter  part  of  1523;  the  other  four  were 
all  composed  in  the  months  August  to  October,  1524.^^ 
In  forming  his  opinion  it  cannot  be  said  whether 
Carlstadt  was  influenced  by  Honius,  whose  first  treatise  , 
had  been  brought  to  Wittenberg  by  Hinne  Rode,  or 
not.  It  is  quite  likely  that  he  evolved  the  idea  him- 
self, aware  of  the  contradiction  between  the  doctrine 
of  the  supreme  importance  of  faith,  and  one  which  yet 
put  so  much  stress  on  the  outward  signs.  At  any  rate 
his  first  pamphlet,  On  the  Priesthood  and  Sacrifice  of 
Christy  was  a  direct  answer  to  Luther's  Adoration  of 
the  Sacrament,,  which  is  a  defence  of  the  real  presence 
against  the  Bohemians.  Carlstadt  wrote  that  he  was 
compelled  "by  the  inner  witness  of  the  spirit"  and  "the 
clear  word  of  the  Bible,"  to  believe  that  the  bread  and 
wine  were  mere  memorials.  The  real  presence,  he 
thought,  stood  in  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
universal  priesthood,  or  else  we  must  assume  that  all 

15  Barge,  Aktenstuke,  3  ff. 
*^  Barge,  ii.  151. 


CARLSTADT  127 

Christians  have  the  power  to  transmute  the  elements, 
and  thereby  place  all  believers  "by  the  side  of  Christ, 
to  be,  with  him,  mediators  of  the  New  Covenant."  '^ 

On  August  22,  1524,  Luther  and  Carlstadt  had  a 
friendly  conference  at  Jena.  The  Wittenberger  gave 
his  colleague  permission  to  attack  his  opinions  and  a 
gold  gulden  as  a  pledge  of  tolerance.'^  It  was  doubt- 
less in  response  to  this  invitation  that  Carlstadt  com- 
posed the  four  other  pamphlets  setting  forth  his  views 
on  the  sacrament. 

His  argument  is  nothing  if  not  thorough.  He  first 
proves  that  Christ  could  not  be  in  the  bread,  by  Paul's 
words  (i  Cor.  ii,  2)  "I  know  nothing  among  you  save 
Christ  and  him  crucified."  His  body  therefore  could 
have  been  nowhere  else  save  on  the  cross. ''^  He  calls 
it  foolish  to  seek  forgiveness  of  sins  in  mere  signs. ^° 
In  exegesis  of  "This  is  my  body,"  he  said  Christ  point- 
ed to  his  own  body,  and  this  he  proved  by  alleging  that 
in  Greek  "this,"  touto,  could  not  agree,  being  neuter, 
with  "bread,"  apro?,  being  masculine,  but  must  agree 
with  the  neuter  "body,"  a^/xa.-^  Calling  Luther  "the 
Antichrist's  [pope's]  younger  friend,"  he  asserts  that 
he  has  the  witness  of  the  "Spirit"  which  Christ  prom- 
ised." Luther's  answer  to  this  was  pat:  "My  devil,  I 
know  you  well!"  -^ 

Continuing  his  argument,  Carlstadt  says  that  the 
words  about  breaking  the  bread  as  the  communion  of 

*^Jannsen,20  ii.  450. 

18  Smith,  Luther,  154. 

19  Barge,  ii.  153. 
^^Ibid.,  IS7. 

'^^  Ibid.,  159  f,  170.     A  similar  argument  has  been  used  three  hun- 
dred  years   before   by   Moneta   of   Cremona. 

22  Barge,  ii.  161. 

23  Grisar,  ii.  326. 


y 


128  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

the  body  of  Christ  (i  Cor.  x.  i6  f)  refer  not  to  the 
eucharist  but  to  all  bread.  Those  who  interpret  "cup" 
here  for  "wine,"  continens  pro  contento,  "do  it  out  of 
their  own  heads,  leaving  Christ's  clear  words. "^* 

Further,  he  proved  that  "this"  referred  to  "body" 
by  the  words  "broken  for  you,"  which  meant,  broken 
on  the  cross.  Nor  could  Christ  be  in  the  bread  now, 
because  Paul  says  "till  he  come,"  i  Cor.  xi.  26.  If 
Christ  had  indeed  referred  to  the  wine  as  his  blood  he 
must  have  consecrated  it  in  the  bellies  of  his  disciples 
as  he  spoke  the  words  of  institution  after  they  had 
drunk  (Mark  xlv.  23-4).  Finally,  Christ  said  "this 
is  my  body,"  not  "in  this  is  my  body,"  as  the  main- 
tainers  of  the  real  presence  make  him  say.^^ 

Immediately  after  finishing  the  pamphlets  Carlstadt 
left  Saxony  and  wandered  to  South  Germany  and 
Switzerland.  His  work,  thus  industriously  dissemin- 
ated, had  considerable  influence.  At  Strassburg  he 
saw  Capito  and  Bucer.  The  former  wrote,  as  early  as 
October,  1524,  a  tract  headed,  fVhat  to  think  of  the 
Schism  between  Luther  and  Carlstadt.  He  tried  to 
minimize  the  difference,  comparing  it  to  that  once  ex- 
istent between  Paul  and  Barnabas.  One  should  not 
honor  Luther  more  than  God,  and  as  all  are  agreed  in 
reprobating  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  it  is  silly,  said  he, 
to  inquire  further.^®  On  the  other  hand  Nicholas 
Gerbel  wrote  Luther  on  November  22,  1524,  from 
Strassburg,  that  no  Faber,  Eck,  or  Emser  had  hurt  him 
as  much  as  had  Carlstadt. 

The  Strassburgers  were  in  general  for  Luther;  Ger- 

2*  Barge,  ii.  162  f. 

25  Barge,  ii.  164  f. 

26  Barge,  ii.  214  f. 


CARLSTADT  1.29 

bel,  for  instance,  writing  Melanchthon  that  Carlstadt 
had  brought  unnumbered  multitudes  into  hell  fire." 
At  Augsburg  Michael  Keller  (Cellarius)  took  Carl- 
stadt's  part,  while  Urban  Rhegius  wrote  against  him, 
deploring  the  fact  that  now  the  laity,  even  drunken 
sausage  makers  and  crazy  old  women  discuss  the  sacra- 
ment.^^ Popular  interest  was  intense.  The  whole 
of  Protestant  Germany  took  sides  almost  at  once,  and 
the  controversy  thus  started  lasted  for  over  a  century. 

At  Nuremberg,  Lazarus  Spengler  said  that  Carl- 
stadt's  opinion  was  to  be  rejected  as  it  rested  only  on 
reason,  not  on  the  Bible.  The  printing  of  his  books 
was  forbidden  and  legal  action  instituted  against  his 
followers.  This  revealed  more  than  had  been  antici- 
pated, for  on  examination  the  well  known  painters 
Sebald  Beham  and  his  brother  Barthel  and  George 
Pentz,  confessed  that  they  could  not  believe  various 
Christian  dogmas.  How  far  they  were  led  to  take 
this  position  by  the  religious  controversies  of  the  age 
would  be  most  instructive  to  learn.^^ 

At  Nordlingen,  Billican  wrote  his  Renovatio  ec- 
clesiae  Nordlingiacensis  against  Carlstadt  ( 1525) .  He 
tried  to  make  the  difference  between  Luther  and  Carl- 
stadt as  wide  as  possible,  but  misunderstood  his  master, 
for  he  blamed  Carlstadt  for  saying  that  the  sacrament 
forgave  sins.  This  was  exactly  Luther's  position.  Bil- 
lican was  inclined  to  call  the  sacrament  a  mere  me- 
morial, though  he  illogically  maintained  the  real  pres- 
ence. But  when,  in  February,  1525,  Carlstadt  met 
Billican  he   almost  converted  him.     The   Nordlinger 

27  Barge,  ii.  226,  228. 

^^  Ibid.,  233. 

^^  Ibid.,  242  f;  Smith:  Age  of  the  Reformation,  p.  628. 


I30  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

then  wrote  Luther  for  instruction,  and,  after  a  long 
period  of  uncertainty,  was  finally  persuaded  to  return 
to  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  church.^" 

In  Holland,  Spalatin  wrote,  that  there  were  an  ex- 
traordinary number  tainted  with  the  Carlstadtian 
spirit.^^ 

The  Catholics  were  much  cheered  by  the  split  in  the 
ranks  of  the  Reformers,  and  knew  how  to  make  the 
most  of  it  at  the  imperial  Diets.  Eck  even  praised 
Luther  in  comparison  with  Carlstadt.  The  humanists, 
on  the  other  hand,  were  repelled  by  the  new  prophet's 
manner.^^ 

Luther's  consciousness  of  the  scandal  given  by  the 
schism  greatly  increased  his  rage.  "Carlstadt,"  he 
wrote,  "altogether  given  over  to  demons,  pours  forth 
his  fury  against  us  in  many  printed  books,  full  of  the 
poison  of  death  and  hell.  .  .  The  papists  rejoice 
over  our  schism.  But  God  in  his  own  time  will  find 
Carlstadt,  who,  I  think,  is  committing  a  mortal  sin."  ^^ 

He  was,  indeed,  thoroughly  frightened  at  subjec- 
tivism in  a  matter  uncongenial  to  him.  In  answer  to 
an  inquiry  from  Strassburg,^*  he  wrote  a  letter  violent- 
ly denouncing  Carlstadt,  December  17,  1524.^^  About 
the  same  time  he  wrote,  in  two  parts,  his  work.  Against 
the  Heavenly  Prophets  of  Images  and  the  Sacrament.^^ 
The  first  part  of  this  treatise  is  directed  against  the 
iconoclasm  of  the  innovators,  the  second  part  is  on  the 

30  Barge,  ii.  245.  Religion  in  Geschichte  und  Gegennvart,  s.v. 
"Billican."  ' 

31  Barge,  ii.  259. 
^^  Ibid.,  253. 

33  To  Brismann,  Jan.  11,  1525,  Enders,  v.  100  f. 
3*  Enders,  v.  59  ff. 

35  Weimar,  xv.  391   ff,  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii.  274  ff. 

36  Weimar,  xviii.  62  ff. 


CARLSTADT  131 

Lord's  Supper.  In  this  he  rightly  criticizes  Carlstadt's 
grammatical  mistake  In  making  toUto  unable,  on  account 
of  its  gender,  to  refer  to  apro^.  Against  Carlstadt's 
claim  that  i  Cor.  x.  16  did  not  refer  to  communion  at 
all,  Luther  calls  it  "a  very  thunderbolt  on  the  head  of 
Dr.  Carlstadt  and  all  his  horde,  and  a  lively  medicine 
for  the  heart  tempted  about  the  sacraj^ient."  He  ad- 
vances the  theory,  borrowed  from  Scotus,  of  the 
ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.  The  tone  of  the  pamphlet 
is  of  the  rudest.  Carlstadt  Is  called  "a  murder- 
er of  souls  and  a  spirit  of  sin."  Other  phrases  are: 
"the  devil  rides  him;"  "the  ass's  head  will  master 
Greek;"  "he  tattles  and  tittles,  cackles  and  cuckles;" 
he  has  "a  lying,  evil  spirit,"  "a  deceitful,  clandestine 
devil,  who  crawls  Into  corners  to  do  damage  and 
spread  poison." 

In  general  the  work  alienated  other   Protestants. 
Melanchthon,  Indeed,  was  only  too  ready  to  take  the. 
part  of  his  leader  against  Carlstadt."   But  both  Zwing-  ^ 
11    and   Oecolampadlus   were   displeased   with    It   and 
blamed  the  violence  of  Luther's  "old  Adam."  ''    Capi-  i 
to  also  censured  the  author  of  the  work  for  "leaping 
upon  a  downcast  and  ignoble  foe,"  "for  striking  back  at 
one  who  has  scolded  him,"  and  for  pronouncing  with 
too  much  surety  and  finalty.  The  book,  says  Caplto,  has 
so  soiled  Luther's  reputation  for  holiness  that  he  wishes 
It  had  never  been  written. ^^   Gerbel  wrote  from  Strass- 
burg  that  the  work  displeased  almost  everyone  there, 
at  Zurich,  and  at  Basle,  and  that  Carlstadt  was  gener- 
ally defended  and  Zwingll  esteemed.*" 

^"^  Corpus  Ref.,  i.  col.  726,  730,  735,  740. 

38  Barge,  ii.  277  f. 

39Vogt:  Bug  en  hag  ens  Briejijaechsel,  38,  Oct.  8,  1525. 

*o  Barge,  ii.  276. 


132  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Carlstadt's  old  parishioners  at  Orlamiinde  stood  by 
him.  "So  does  Satan  rage,"  exclaims  Luther,  "that 
at  Orlamiinde  the  peasants  use  my  book  for  toilet 
paper!"  *^  From  the  same  place  Luther  heard  silly 
stories,  which  he  greedily  swallowed,  about  Carlstadt 
pretending  to  have  a  familiar  spirit  who  was  really  a 
chaplain.*^ 

On  receiving  The  Heavenly  Prophets  in  February, 
1525,  Carlstadt  immediately  replied  in  three  pamph- 
lets. The  most  important  of  these  was  an  Exegesis 
of  I  Cor.  X.  i6y  a  text  which  his  opponent  had  called 
a  thunderbolt  on  his  head.  He  tries  to  show  that  it 
is  not  that  but  a  "plumcake"  for  him.  These  works, 
however,  seem  to  have  been  little  read,  as  his  star  had 
already  begun  to  pale  before  those  of  Zwingli  and 
Oecolampadius.*^ 

But  his  opinions  had  become  widely  accepted  by 
this  time.  In  1525  the  preachers  at  Frankfurt  am 
Main  taught  that  "the  sacrament  of  the  altar  is  noth- 
ing but  water  and  meal,  and  the  priests  who  say  mass 
do  nothing  but  a  devilish  work  and  crucify  God  there- 
by." ^*  A  more  dramatic  expression  of  these  views 
was  given  by  the  peasants  in  the  great  rebellion.  At 
that  time  the  rustics  of  St.  Blasien  in  the  Black  Forest, 
broke  into  a  church,  and  demolished  altar  and  mon- 
strance, while  one  of  the  men  swallowed  the  hosts,  re- 
marking that  "for  once  he  would  eat  enough  of  God." 
Somewhat  similar  proceedings  took  place  at  Ries  and 
at  Rothenburg.*^     Thomas  Miinzer  confessed,  before 

*i  To  Link,  Feb.  7,  1525,  Enders,  v.  122. 

■*2  Enders,  v.  107  f,  123,  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii.  292. 

*3  Barge,  ii.  279  ff. 

■**  Janssen,2o  ii.  667,  note   i. 

^^Ibid.,  SIS,  597- 


CARLSTADT  133 

his  execution,  that  at  Halle  he  had  eaten  two  hundred 
"Lord  Gods"  which  he  had  not  himself  consecrated.*® 

Carlstadt   was   both    discredited   by    the    Peasants' 
Revolt    and    terrified    by    its    outcome.     Not    know-  | 
ing  where  to  turn,  he  came  to  Wittenberg  and  was 
received  for  some  time  during  the  summer  of  1525  in 
Luther's  own  house.     The  Reformer  did  not  accord 
his  protection  for  nothing  but  forced  Carlstadt  to  re- 
cant.    On  July  25  the  latter  published  an  Explanation^  t 
saying,  in  language  intentionally  ambiguous:     "I  rec-  ; 
ognize  before  God,  without  jest  and  from  my  heart,   ,' 
that  all  that  I  wrote,  spoke,  or  taught  from  my  own   i 
brain  or  discovered  for  myself,   is  human,   false,  un- 
praiseworthy,  deceitful,  satanic,  and  to  be  shunned  and 
avoided."  *^     What  these  human  ideas  were  was  left 
unexpressed,  but  the  recantation  was  universally  under- 
stood to  refer  to  the  doctrine  of  the  eucharist,  partic- 
ularly as  Luther  immediately  published  the  Explana- 
tion, with  a  preface  expressing  his  own  dogmatic  cer- 
tainty. What  pressure  was  put  upon  Carlstadt  to  induce 
him  to  sign  even  this,  is  told  by  himself:    "One  will  not 
see  me,"  he  writes,  "another  follows  me  to  seize  or 
murder  me,  a  third  forbids  me  to  buy  food  or  drink,] 
and  a  fourth  does  something  else  against  me.     I  am  so 
harrassed  that  I  think  I  should  be  better  off  in  Tur- 
key." ^« 

The  recantation  was  a  blow  to  the  party.  Capito 
wrote  Zwingli  in  bitter  mockery  of  the  whole  comedy 
of  reconciliation:  Carlstadt  had  recanted;  Luther  had 
flattered    him;    "O    evangelic    men!      Carlstadt    cited 

*6So  Luther  says  in  a  sermon  of  April  19,  1538,  Buchwald,  338. 
*^  Barge,  ii.   366. 
48  Barge,  ii.  368. 


134  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Luther  before  God's  last  judgment;  Luther  asserted 
that  Carlstadt  deserved  capital  punishment,  and  was  no 
man  but  had  a  cacodemon.  And  yet  they  became 
reconciled,  according  to  the  word  of  Scripture,  'Agree 
with  thine  adversary  quickly  whilst  thou  art  In  the 
way' !"  '' 

In  return  for  his  compliance  Carlstadt  received  per- 
rmlsslon  to  live  at  Kemberg  In  Saxony.  It  was  almost 
[inevitable  that  the  old  quarrel  should  break  out  again. 
In  August,  1527,  Carlstadt  was  asked  for  another 
statement  of  his  views,  and  handed  one  to  Chancellor 
I  Briick,  pointedly  refraining  from  expressing  agreement 
\  with  Luther.  The  Wittenberg  professor  expostulated 
with  him  quite  gently,^"  but  In  the  next  year  their  pas- 
sions flared  up  again.  Carlstadt  was  exasperated  by 
Luther's  Confession  on  Christ's  Supper,  and  the  other, 
intercepting  a  letter  written  by  his  old  friend  to 
Schwenckfeld,  believed  that  he  found  evidence  of  con- 
spiracy. He  demanded  satisfaction,  and  even  said 
that  Carlstadt  should  be  imprisoned.^^  Soon  after  this 
he  received  two  pamphlets  arguing  the  case.  The  only 
reply  he  made  was,  "If  Dr.  Carlstadt  has  an  argument 
in  the  words  'dedit'  [Mark,  xlv.  22]  and  'donee  venlet' 
[i  Cor.  xi.  26]  to  prove  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  not  in  the  bread  and  wine  and  are  not  cor- 
poreally enjoyed,  let  him  make  the  most  of  these 
words,  no  matter  what  parts  of  speech  they  are."  Carl- 
stadt then  appealed  to  the  Elector  John,  complaining: 
"I  was  not  helped  by  such  an  answer,  nor  did  I  de- 
serve it.     Truly  It  were  just  as  possible  for  me  to  take 

49  Corp.  Ref.,  xcv.  404  f. 

^0  End  of  November,  Enders,  vi.   127   ff.     Barge,  ii.   381. 

51  Barge,  ii.  388. 


CARLSTADT  135 

Dr.  Luther's  opinion  about  the  sacrament  with  good 
conscience  and  whole  heart,  merely  on  the  ground  of 
what  he  has  hitherto  written,  as  it  would  be  for  me  to 
fly  in  the  air  like  a  bird.  .  .  I  know  that  if  there 
came  an  angel  from  heaven,  and  said  that  there  was 
another  body  of  Christ  than  his  natural  body  given 
and  broken  for  us  on  the  cross,  that  angel  would  be  an 
abomination  and  curse  to  me  and  to  all  believers."  ^^ 

Early  the  next  year  he  fled  from  Saxony,  and,  after 
wandering  about,  finally  settled  as  professor  at  Basle. 
In  July,  1536,  we  find  him  negotiating  with  Bucer  at 
Strassburg  about  the  Wittenberg  Agreement,  recently 
signed.  He  then  recognized  the  real  presence,  with 
the  proviso  that  the  sacrament  consisted  of  two  things, 
an  earthly,  bread  and  wine,  and  a  heavenly,  body  and 
blood,  "yea,  the  Lord  himself."  But  there  was  no 
mixture  of  the  two,  or  inclusion  of  the  latter  in  or  with 
the  bread.^^ 

Luther's  hatred  of  his  old  colleague  passed  all 
bounds.  In  December,  1540,  he  said:  "If  Carlstadt 
believes  that  there  is  any  God  in  heaven  or  earth,  may 
Christ  my  Lord  never  be  kind  nor  gracious  to  me. 
That  is  a  terrible  imprecation,  but  my  reason  for  mak- 
ing it  is  this:  Dr.  Carlstadt  knows  that  concerning  the 
bread  and  wine  we  do  not  utter  bubbles  nor  hisses, 
but  that  we  speak  the  holy,  heavenly  words  of  God 
Almighty,  which  Christ  himself  spoke  with  his  holy 
mouth  at  the  last  supper,  and  commanded  to  be  spoken. 
And  as  Carlstadt  knows  that  we  have  God's  word,  and 
yet  dares  deliberately  to  cry  out  against  it,  to  mock  it 
and  laugh  it  to  scorn  as  a  human  hissing  and  blowing, 

52  Barge,  ii.  585. 

53  Barge,  ii.  604. 


136  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

thus  destroying  the  poor  people  with  such  lies  and 
poison,  and  as  he  shows  no  fear,  hesitation  nor  re- 
morse in  so  doing,  but  only  manifests  joy  and  pleasure 
in  such  wickedness,  how  can  he  believe  or  think  that 
God  exists?  He  is  possessed  with  devils  not  a  few."  ^* 
When,  in  1541,  Luther  heard  of  his  rival's  death,  he 
believed  the  superstitious  tales  he  heard  that  the  devil 
had  appeared  to  the  dying  man  and  haunted  his  house 
afterwards. ^^  Indeed,  the  blind  hatred  of  Carlstadt 
continued  not  only  at  Wittenberg  during  the  Reform- 
er's life-time,  but  even  later. 


5*  Conversations  ivith  Luther j  p.  38  f. 

55  Letter  of  March  26,  1542,  Enders,  xiv,  219. 


VIL    ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS 

So  crushing  a  blow  was  the  ruthless  suppression  of 
the  Peasant's  Revolt  to  the  more  radical  wing  of  the 
Protestants,  that  the  heresy  of  believing  that  a  wafer 
is  not  God  might,  after  1526,  have  fallen  into  the  same 
disrepute  as  did  the  heresy  of  the  Anabaptists,  had  it 
not  been  taken  up  and  championed  by  two  able  Swiss 
reformers. 

Ulrich  Zwingll  was  by  no  means  the  rationalist  that 
Voltaire  ^  and  many  others  have  painted  him.  But 
in  free  Switzerland,  at  the  Universities  of  Vienna  and 
Basle,  in  converse  with  Erasmus  and  Zasius,  he 
breathed  a  fresher  air  than  did  Luther  in  the  Saxon 
Augustinian  cloister.  His  temperament  was  even  more 
different  from  Luther's  than  was  hisi  environment. 
Something  of  a  man  of  the  world,  averse  neither  to 
pleasure  nor  to  letters,  he  had  never  undergone  that 
rebirth  of  spiritual  anguish  which  made  all  Luther's 
thoughts  center  around  his  own  salvation.  While  the 
ex-friar  felt  the  need  of  some  physical  sign  of  forgive- 
ness, and  found  it  in  the  eucharist,  the  parish  priest  of 
Zurich  imbibed  from  that  sturdy  democracy  the  con- 
ception of  the  supreme  importance  of  fellowship,  and 
this  also  he  found  in  the  communion. 

If  monastic  piety  was  the  special  note  of  Luther, 

1  "This  famous  Zwingli  seemed  more  zealous  for  liberty  than  for 
Christianity.  He  thought  virtue  sufficed  to  assure  happiness  in  the 
other  life  .  .  .  Doubtless  he  erred,  but  how  human  it  is  to  err 
thus!"  Essai  sur  les  moeurs,  cap.  cxxix.  On  Zwingli  in  general 
see  Smith:  Age  of  Reformation,  146  if;  on  his  controversy  with  Luther, 
ibid.,  107  ff. 


138  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

and  democratic  freedom  of  Zwingli,  erudition  may 
perhaps  be  called  the  note  of  Oecolampadius.  The 
slowest  in  his  development  of  all  the  Reformers,  he 
was  forty  before  he  declared  definitely  for  them.  At 
Bologna,  at  Heidelberg,  and  at  Tubingen,  where  he 
learned  to  know  Melanchthon  and  studied  Greek,  he 
laid  the  foundations  of  sound  learning.  During  the 
years  15 15-18  he  had  the  invaluable  experience  of  aid- 
ing Erasmus  in  the  edition  of  the  Greek  testament,  his 
special  qualification  being  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew. 
Melanchthon  sought  to  interest  him  in  the  Reforma- 
tion,^ but  he  was  at  first  apparently  repelled  by  it,  and 
entered  a  monastery  in  1520  to  find  peace.  After  two 
years  he  emerged,  possibly  influenced  by  Zwingli,^  to 
whom  he  became  a  devoted  friend.  From  this  time 
until  his  death  he  was  the  leading  evangelical  pastor 
in  Basle.  While  still  in  the  monastery  he  wrote  a 
tract  ^  on  the  eucharist  in  the  most  orthodox  Catholic 
style. 

Like  the  other  Reformers,  Zwingli  fell  foul  of  the 
sacrifice  of  the  mass.  Early  in  1523  he  stated  that 
the  canon  of  the  mass  had  been  composed  not  by  one 
man  but  by  many,  and  that  there  was  much  in  it  both 
superfluous  and  unlearned,  as  for  example  the  words 
"these  gifts  and  offerings."  ^  A  little  later  he  expound- 
ed at  length  his  opinion  that  Christ  had  been  offered 
once  for  all,  and  the  mass  was  therefore  not  a  sacrifice.^ 

^Luther's  Correspondence,  i.  200  ff,  Melanchthon  to  Oecolampadius, 
July  21,  1519. 

^  Oecolampadius  to  Zwingli,  Dec.  lo,  1522,  Corpus  Reformatorum, 
xciv,  634  f. 

*J.  Oecolampadii  sermo  de  Sacramento  eucharist'tae.  [Colophon] 
Augsburg,  June  20,  1521. 

^  Corpus  Ref.,  Ixxxviii.  539. 

^Corpus  Ref.,  Ixxxix.  in   ff.     Zwingli  was  doubtless  influenced  by 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     139 

His  principal  support  for  this  view  is  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  with  its  anti-Pauline  polemic.  One 
source  for  his  doctrine  he  mentions  is  Luther's  Sermon 
on  the  New  Testament  (1520),  with  which  he  declares 
himself  well  pleased,  at  the  same  time  asserting  that  he 
had  taught  the  gospel  in  15 16,  before  he  had  heard  of 
Luther.' 

In  August,  1523,  he  published  a  short  Essay  on  the 
Canon  of  the  Mass^^  supporting  the  same  views  at 
more  length.  He  objects  even  to  the  name  "mass"  as 
not  used  by  Christ,  by  Paul,  or  by  the  ancients.  In 
examining  word  by  word  the  canon  of  the  mass,  he 
proposes  that  the  passage  describing  the  institution  be 
brought  back  exactly  and  fully  to  the  New  Testament. 
He  objects  to  transubstantiation,  while  expressly  de- 
claring that  the  body  of  Christ  is  eaten  and  drunk  with 
the  bread  and  wine.^  As  he  wished  to  change  nothing 
save  what  he  regarded  as  contrary  to  the  gospel,  the 
book  was  too  conservative  for  some  of  his  Zurich 
parishioners,  and  he  was  obliged  to  publish  another 
tract  to  defend  it '"  from  them.  On  the  other  side  he 
had  to  guard  it  from  the  attacks  of  the  Catholic  Em- 
ser.^^ 

Liturgic  reform  proceeded  slowly.  In  October, 
1523,  the  three  parish  priests  of  Zurich  announced  that 
on  Christmas  day  communion  would  be  given  in  both 
kinds    and  that  .  thenceforth    exposition  of    Scripture 

Luther,  but  he  had  a  predecessor  at  Zurich  in  Benedict  Dischmacher, 
who  denied  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  in  1522.     Corpus  Ref.,  xcvi.  35. 
''Ibid.,  137  f,   144  ff. 

8  De  canone  m'lssae  epicheresis,  the  last  word  explained  by  him  as 
"conatus,"  ibid.,  556  fiF. 

9  Ibid.,  589  f. 

1*^  De   canone   missae   libelli   apologia.  Corpus   Ref.   Ixxxix.   617   ff. 
^^  Adversus  H.  Emserum  Antibolon,  1524.     Corpus  Ref.  xc.  230  ff. 


I40  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

would  take  the  place  of  the  mass.  But  the  council,  on 
October  27,  decreed  that  things  should  be  left  as  they 
were.  On  December  19  they  conceded  further  discus- 
sion, which  took  place  in  January.  But  action  was  still 
deferred,  and  it  was  not  until  April  12,  1525,  that  mass 
was  celebrated  for  the  last  time  at  Zurich,  and  thence- 
forward a  communion  service  substituted  for  it.^^ 

In  1523  Zwingli's  ideas  of  a  necessary  reform  were 
very  modest.  In  working  over  the  canon  of  the  mass 
he  had  inserted  new  prayers  in  place  of  old  ones,  but 
still  in  Latin,  and  had  even  left  words  like  "hostia" 
and  "oblatio,"  only  trying  to  give  them  a  new  sense. ^^ 
The  liturgy  which  Zwingli  prepared  in  March  or  April, 
1525,  under  the  title  Procedure  or  Use  of  the  Sup- 
per^^*  as  much  more  radical.  Its  language  is  German. 
The  communicants  are  assembled  in  the  nave,  the  men 
on  the  right  the  women  on  the  left  around  a  table  furn- 
ished with  unleavened  bread  and  with  wine.  The 
minister  passes  the  bread  around  in  plates,  which,  to 
avoid  unnecessary  luxury,  are  to  be  made  of  wood. 
The  first  service,  on  Maundy  Thursday,  was  for  the 
young,  the  second,  on  Holy  Friday,  for  the  middle- 
aged,  and  the  third,  on  Easter,  for  the  old.  Four 
communions  a  year,  at  Easter,  Whitsuntide,  September 
1 1  and  Christmas  were  originally  planned.  The  gospel 
for  the  day  was  appointed  to  be  John  vi.  47-63,  and  af- 
ter the  reading  the  Catholic  "kiss  of  peace"  was  be- 
stowed on  the  book.  After  an  admonition  to  think  of 
the  Lord's  death,  and  a  prayer,  the  communion  began 
with  the  reading  of  i  Cor.  xi.  23-26,  and  the  distribu- 
tion of  bread  and  wine. 

i^Kidd,  409,  438,  441.     Corpus  Ref.  xci,  4  flr. 

^3  Corpus  Ref.,  xci.  2. 

^*Ibid.,  13  ff.    Aktion  oder  Bruch  des  Nachtmahls. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     141 

Confession  and  absolution  were  abolished  as  a  prep- 
aration for  communion,  but  as  it  was  felt  necessary 
to  exclude  persons  of  scandalous  life  from  the  Lord's 
table,  Zwingli  drew  up  a  memorial  ^^  on  this  subject. 
Besides  such  criminals  as  murderers,  perjurers,  and 
robbers,  he  proposed  to  excommunicate  adulterers, 
fornicators,  blasphemers,  drunkards,  and  usurers  who 
took  more  than  5%  interest.  His  plan,  however,  met 
with  practical  difficulties  In  execution. 

Similar  reforms  were  slow  in  being  carried  out  in 
other  Swiss  cities.  Not  until  1529  was  Oecolampadius 
able  to  announce  that  the  mass  had  been  abolished  and 
the  images  taken  out  of  the  churches  and  burned. 
"This  spectacle,"  said  he,  "was  forsooth  very  sad  to 
the  superstitious.  They  had  to  weep  blood. 
Thus,  while  we  raged  against  idols  the  mass  died  of 
sorrow."  " 

In  1524  Zwingli  arrived  at  the  belief  that  the  bread  | 
and  wine  were  mere  signs  of  the  body  and  blood  of  \ 
Jesus.  He  derived  this  opinion  chiefly  from  Honius, 
the  much  appealed  to  Dutch  theologian.  That  he  did 
so  is  recorded  by  his  friend  Kessler,^^  and  is  now 
proved  by  a  just  published  letter,  in  which  he  confesses 
his  full  debt  to  Honius,  "that  moderately  learned  and 
immoderately  pious  man."  ^^ 

It  is  also  certain  that  Carlstadt  greatly  influenced 
Zwingli,  although  the  latter  rejected  many  details  in 
the  former's  reasoning.  Leo  Jud  first  persuaded 
Zwingli  to  read  the  sacramentarian,  whereupon  the 
Zuricher  avowed  that  he  liked  much  and  disliked  much 

15  Corpus  Ref.,  xci.  25  ff. 

16  To  Capito,  Feb.  13,  1529,  Kidd,  466. 
i^John  Kessler:  Sabbata,  1904,  p.   138. 

18  To  Krautwald  &c,  April  17,  1526,  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  567  ff. 


142  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

in  what  he  read.  In  particular  he  could  not  agree  with 
the  grammatical  argument  from  the  gender  of  tovto.^^ 
In  the  autumn  of  1524  Carlstadt  came  to  Zurich,  but 
Zwingli  was  persuaded  by  "certain  persons  of  melan- 
choly spirit"  not  to  grant  him  an  audience.^"  Oeco- 
lampadius  judged  Carlstadt  more  favorably." 

Once  the  slightest  divergence  of  creed  was  started 
between  the  Saxon  and  the  Swiss  Reformers  it  was  sure- 
to  be  widened  by  the  intense  self-consciousness  and 
touchiness  of  each  party.  During  the  first  years  after 
the  posting  of  the  Ninety-five  Theses,  indeed,  Zwingli 
had  nothing  but  admiration  for  the  bold  rebel  against 
ecclesiastical  oppression.  He  called  him  another 
Elijah,  and  persuaded  Zasius  not  to  write  against  him." 
But  his  opinion  soon  became  more  reserved.  In  July, 
1522,  he  refuses  to  be  called  either  a  Lutheran  or  a 
Hussite,  and  says  that  if  Luther's  doctrine  resembles 
his  it  is  because  both  have  drunk  from  the  same  biblical 
fountains. ^^  A  few  months  later  he  makes  the  same 
assertion  more  positively,  saying  that  he  does  not  de- 
fend Luther  but  the  gospel.^*  He  had  begun  to  preach 
in  15 16  before  he  ever  heard  of  Luther,  and  refuses 
to  be  called  by  his  name,  though  he  approves  of  his 
doctrine. ^^  In  1525,  as  already  related,  Zwingli  was 
alienated  by  the  violence  of  the  work  Against  the  Heav- 
enly Prophets  of  Images  and  the  Sacrament.  Still 
more  was  he  offended  by  the  Wittenberger's  ferocious 

19  Barge,  ii.  260. 

20  7^-;^.,  216. 
^  Ibid.,  262. 

^^  Luther's   Correspondence,  i.  251,  note   i;  p.   304.     In   1519   and 
1520. 

23  Corpus  Ref.,  Ixxxix,  224, 

^*Ibid.,  437. 

25  Corpus  Ref.,  xc.  147. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     143 

pamphlet  against  the  peasants.-*'  Even  had  he  not  ap- 
proved the  revolt,  as  he  did,"  he  might  well  have  been 
repelled  by  the  cruelty  of  the  Reformer  who  urged  the 
authorities  to  stab,  smite,  and  slay  the  poor,  misguided 
rustics. 

Luther  on  his  side  assumed  that  he  had  a  monopoly 
of  truth  and  that  those  who  advanced  independent 
opinions  were,  so  to  speak,  infringing  his  copyright. 
Carlstadt,  Zwingli,  and  Oecolampadius,  said  he,  would 
never  have  learned  to  know  Christ's  gospel  rightly  "if 
Luther  had  not  written  of  it  first."  ^^  But  when  they 
dared  not  only  to  discover  new  truths,  but  to  defend 
them,  they  were  rebels  and  traitors  to  the  cause.  "I 
am  compelled,"  he  wrote  in  January,  1526,  "to  bear 
with  these  sons  of  my  body,  my  Absoloms,  who  with- 
stand me  so  furiously.  They  are  scourges  of  the  sac- 
rament, compared  to  whose  madness  the  papists  are 
mild.  I  never  understood  before  how  evil  a  spirit  is 
Satan,  nor  did  I  comprehend  Paul's  words  about  spirit- 
ual wickedness."  ^^  A  year  later  he  wrote:  "Hither- 
to I  have  suffered  in  all  ways.  But  not  until  now  did 
my  Absolom,  my  dear  son,  hunt  and  shame  his  father 
David.  My  Judas  [Zwingli]  had  not  yet  shamed  the 
disciples  and  betrayed  his  Master,  but  now  he  has  done 
his  worst  on  me."  ^° 

Zwingli's  first  utterance  on  the  subject  is  found  in  his 
Epistle  to  Matthew  Alber,^^  a  Lutheran  pastor  of  Reut- 
lingen,   on  the  Lord's   Supper,   dated  November   16, 

26  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  471,  to  Vadian,  Dec.  23,  1525. 

27  Historiche  Zeitsc/irift,  ex.  90. 

28  Weimar,  xxiii.  34  f. 

^^  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii.  363. 

30  Smith,  Luther,  241. 

31  Corpus  Ref.,  xc.  322  ff. 


144  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

(   1524.    It  was  intended  as  an  "open  letter,"  for,  though 
not  printed  until  March,  1525,  it  was  widely  circulated 
in  manuscript,  copies  of  it  being  sent  to  a  number  of 
selected  ministers  in  Switzerland  and  South  Germany. 
It  was  not  even  sent  to  its  addressee,  whose  strong 
Lutheran  bias  was  considered  unassailable.     The  rea- 
son for  this  disingenuous  procedure  was  doubtless  the 
wish,  on  Zwingli's  part,  to  spread  his  views  abroad 
I  without  exciting  quarrels.     The  content  of  the  letter  is 
I    an  examination  of  Carlstadt's  arguments,  and,  along 
■    with  the  rejection  of  many  of  them,  especially  of  the 
famous  TovTo,  the  acceptance  of  his  main  position. 

The  letter  was  sent  to  Luther  by  Nicholas  Gerbel  of 
Strassburg,  in  April  if  not  earlier.^^ 

In  the  meantime  Luther's  Letter  to  the  Christians 
of  Strassburg  had  been  printed.  Capito  sent  it  to 
Zwingli  on  February  6,  1525,  blaming  it  for  lack  of 
moderation,  but  censuring  Carlstadt  still  more  severely 
for  vainglory.  Capito  begged  his  friend  to  be  careful, 
as  he  feared  the  Imperial  Diet  would  act  against  them 
for  Carlstadt's  heresy.  Their  church,  he  said,  had 
long  been  convinced  that  the  bread  remained  true 
bread,  nor  was  the  body  of  Christ  present  in  it,  for 
that  was  absent  in  heaven. ^^ 

In  March,  1525,  Zwingli  published  his  Commentary 
on  true  and  false  Religion^  setting  forth  his  theological 
system  at  length.  A  large  section  of  this  is  devoted 
to  the  Lord's  Supper.^*  He  notes  that  the  Greeks, 
more   learned   and   pious   than   the   Latins,    called   it 

32  Gerbel  to  Luther,  Enders,  v.  155,  there  dated  April  lo-n. 
The  St.  Louis  Walch  edition,  xxia,  p.  734,  makes  the  probable  sug- 
gestion that  the  letter  should  really  be  placed  earlier. 

33  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  299  ff. 
3*  Corpus  Ref.,  xc.  772  ff. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     145 

"eucharist,"  or  thanksgiving,  and  that  Paul  spoke  of 
it  ( I  Cor.  xvi,  16)  as  communion.  He  finds  Christ's 
weightiest  words  on  the  subject  in  John  vi.  26  ff.  These 
do  not,  says  he,  refer  to  the  sacramental  bread,  but  to 
faith,  the  real  food  of  believers.  Many  really  eat  the 
communion  bread  without  being  in  Christ,  but  those 
who  feed  on  him  in  faith  are  his.  Jesus  says  expressly 
that  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing,  meaning  that  it 
profiteth  nothing  as  food,  for  it  certainly  profited 
much  as  the  victim  on  the  cross.  These  words,  how-  ; 
ever,  he  thinks,  prove  the  body  is  not  present  in  the 
bread  "really,  corporeally  or  essentially."  To  pretend 
to  eat  the  body  is  godless,  foolish  and  "a  human  gob- 
bling." Expounding  the  words  "This  is  my  body,"  \ 
Zwingli  says  that  "is"  means  "signifies."  He  then 
adds  a  few  words  against  Emser,  on  the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass.  He  concludes:  "And  so  the  Supper,  be  it  called 
eucharist,  communion,  or  Lord's  meal,  is  nothing  else 
than  a  commemoration,  by  which  those  who  believe 
steadfastly  in  the  reconciliation  with  the  Father 
through  Christ's  death  and  blood,  proclaim,  that  is, 
praise,  give  thanks  for,  and  preach  this  death-unto- 
life."  All  the  older  fathers,  it  is  stated,  have  so  un- 
derstood it. 

There  was  no  lack  of  champions  to  take  up  the 
gauntlet.  Willibald  Pirckheimer  of  Nuremberg  wrote 
at  once  on  the  Lutheran  side.  Oecolampadius  in- 
formed him,  in  a  letter  dated  April  25,  1525,  that  the 
town  council  of  Basle  would  summon  a  conference  on 
the  sacrament,  but  nothing  came  of  this.^^ 

In  August,  1525,  Bugenhagen,  the  parish  priest  of 
Wittenberg,  published  a  letter  Against  the  new  error 

35  Schubert  in  Z.  K.  G.,  xxix.  324. 


146  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Nicholas  von  Amsdorf,  formerly  a  col- 
league of  Luther  and  now  pastor  of  Magdeburg,  took 
up  the  cudgels  in  the  same  cause.  These  works 
aroused  less  sympathy  than  opposition.  Lewis  Hetzer 
of  Augsburg  said  that  the  former  ought  to  be  hissed 
and  that  the  latter  was  worse  than  cowdung.^^  On 
his  side  Bugenhagen  wrote :  ^^  "Zwingli  calls  us  car- 
nivores and  deniers  of  the  redemption  of  the  cross, 
because  we  confess  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  sacrament."  But,  he  adds,  Zwingli  is  no  theolo- 
gian. 

Oecolampadius,  who  had  conferred  with  Zwingli  on 
the  subject  in  1524,  now  hastened  to  his  friend's  as- 
sistance with  a  pamphlet  on  The  genuine  Exposition 
of  the  Lord's  words,  This  is  my  Body,  according  to  the 
most  ancient  authors}^  He  traced  the  whole  error 
I  of  the  real  presence  to  Peter  Lombard.  "This  is  my 
I  body"  he  called  a  trope,  no  rnore  literally  to  be  under- 
stood than  Paul's  saying  that  Christ  was  a  rock.  No 
miracle  is  performed  by  the  priest.  The  superstition 
in  the  new  worship  of  bread,  as  seen  for  example  in 
Corpus  Christi  day,  is  severely  scored  by  him.  The 
Bible  is  stated  to  be  above  the  sacraments  and  the  only 
essential  to  salvation.  Many  of  the  ancient  fathers 
are  quoted. 

A  fresh  crop  of  refutations  immediately  appeared. 
James  Strauss  of  Eisenach  wrote  two  tracts  against 
Zwingli  and  Oecolampadius,  calling  their  opinion  "a 
lamentable  confounding  of  many  thousand  simple 
Christians."  '^ 

36  Barge,   ii.   238. 

3'' To  Gerbel,  Nov.  4,  1525,  Vogt,  52  flF. 

^^J.   Oecolampadii  de  genuina  Verborum  Domini,  &c,  liber,  is^S- 

39  Barge,  ii.  256. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     147 

J.  Brenz,  a  Swabian  clergyman,  wrote  two  works  on 
the  subject.  One  was  an  open  letter  to  Bucer/°  The 
other  was  published  by  his  colleagues  in  Swabia,  under 
the  name  Syngramma^  in  October,  1525.*^  To  the  Ger- 
man translation  of  this,  in  1526,  Luther  wrote  a  pre-  \ 
face  stating  that  his  arguments  advanced  in  the  work 
Against  the  Heavenly  Prophets  have  not  yet  been  over- 
come, and  blaming  his  opponents  for  relying  only  on 
reason.  About  the  same  time  some  of  his  sermons  on 
the  subject  were  published  with  the  title.  On  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  against  the 
Ranting  Spirits.^^  Of  this  Zwingli  said  that  Luther 
admonished  them  hardly  more  civilly  than  he  had  the 
rebellious  peasants.*^ 

With  the  Lutherans  the  Catholics  made  common 
cause.  On  October  28,  1525,  Eck  directed  a  long 
letter  to  the  Swiss  Confederates  begging  them  not  to 
be  led  astray  by  Zwingli  and  Oecolampadius.  The 
former  had  once  recognized  Luther  as  a  master,  why 
should  he  not  do  so  now,  when  at  last  Luther  was 
right?  The  sad  results  of  these  errors  in  Germany 
are  painted.  Oecolampadius's  name  Husschein  is 
punned  on,  for  he  is  dubbed  "ein  hussischer  schein." 
Eck  says  that  he  has  just  been  through  the  Nether- 
lands and  England,  and  of  seventy  cities  he  visited 
only  three  were  Lutheran,^  and  in  two  of  these  three 
nothing  was  changed  in  the  church  service.^* 

Cardinal  Cajetan  also  felt  called  upon  to  condemn 
the  new  heresy  in  two  pronouncements  of  1525.^^     In 

*"  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  438,  note. 
*^  Kostlin-Kawerau,  ii.  80  ff. 
^2  Kostlin-Kawerau,  ii.  83. 

_43  To  Vadian,  Dec.  23,   1525,  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  471. 
**  Briefmappe,  i.,  ed.  Greving,  1912,  pp.  154  ff.     - 
*5  Instructio  nuncii  circa  errores  libelli  de  cena  dom'ini  per  capita 


148  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

combating  the  Zwinglians  he  advanced  a  remarkably 
free  interpretation  of  the  Catholic  doctrine.  Christ, 
said  he,  is  not  eaten  "corporeally  or  perceptibly"  but 
"spiritually  and  without  perception  of  either  the  sense 
or  the  intellect,  simply  by  faith  that  his  body  is  taken 
in  the  eucharist."  The  "corporeal  eating"  relates  only 
to  the  "sacramental  species  of  the  bread  and  wine, 
under  which  is  contained  the  true  flesh  of  Christ;  but 
the  spiritual  eating,  which  is  done  through  the  soul, 
pertains  to  the  flesh  of  Christ  existing  in  the  sacra- 
ment." 

Another  Catholic  apology  was  written  by  John 
Fisher,  Bishop  of  Rochester.  He  made  the  most  of 
the  dissensions  among  the  Reformers,  and  violently 
attacked  Luther,  Carlstadt,  and  Melanchthon.  Oeco- 
lampadius  was  said  to  err  even  more  than  Luther,  and 
a  very  lengthy  refutation  of  his  propositions  was 
given.*^ 

Erasmus,  too,  came  very  near  being  drawn  into  the 
controversy.  Notwithstanding  Melanchthon's  opinion 
than  "the  whole  tragedy  of  the  Lord's  Supper  originat- 
ed from  Erasmus"  *^  the  humanist  always  professed 
orthodoxy.  He  did  indeed  point  out  that  the  sacrifice 
of  the  mass  was  not  a  dogma  officially  sanctioned,*®  and 
he  ventured  to  criticize  those  priests  who  regarded 
the  mass  chiefly  as  a  means  of  livelihood.*®  Neverthe- 
less he  occasionally  spoke  of  the  mass  as  a  sacrifice  and 

.  .  .  iussu  dementis  VII;  Traciatus  de  erroribus  contingentibus 
in  Eucharistiae  Sacramento.     Both  analysed  by  Lauchert,  157  ff. 

*^  De  veritate  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi  in  eucharistia  per 
referendum  in  Christo  patrem  ac  Dominum  D.  Johannem  Roffensem 
Episcopum    adversus   Johannem    Oecolampadium.      Coloniae.      1527. 

^''Corpus  Reformatorum,  i.  1083;  iv.  970;  Jackson,  85. 

"^^  Apology  to  Certain  Spanish  Monks,  1528,  Opera,  ix.  1064-6. 

*^  Opera,  iii.  1274. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     149 

by  so  doing  put  his  works,  even  during  his  lifetime,  un- 
der the  ban  of  the  Protestants/" 

On  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  Erasmus  was  at 
first  impressed  by  the  arguments  of  the  Swiss.  On 
October  2,  1525,  he  wrote  Michael  Buda,  Bishop  of 
Langres :  ^^ 

A  new  dogma  has  arisen,  that  the  eucharist  is  nothing  but  bread 
and  wine.  It  is  difficult  to  refute.  Oecolampadius  has  supported  it 
with  such  copious  and  powerful  arguments  and  citations  that  it  seems 
as  if  the  elect  might  be  seduced. 

Again  he  wrote  to  Pirckheimer,  one  of  his  best 
friends,  June  6,  1526: 

Oecolampadius'  opinion  of  the  eucharist  would  not  displease  me 
were  it  not  opposed  to  the  consensus  of  the  church.  For  I  do  not 
see  what  is  the  function  of  the  body  which  cannot  be  apprehended 
by  the  senses,  nor  what  use  it  would  be  if  it  could  be  grasped  by  the 
senses,  provided  that  a  spiritual  grace  is  present  in  the  symbols. 
But  the  authority  of  the  church  binds  me.^^ 

Again  he  wrote  to  the  same  friend,  July  30,  1526: 

I  should  have  some  doubts,  as  one  little  learned,  on  the  eucharist, 
if  the  authority  of  the  church,  by  which  I  mean  the  consensus  of 
Christians  throughout  the  world,  did   not  reassure  me.^^ 

Erasmus  was  evidently  more  than  half  convinced 
by  the  arguments  of  the  Swiss,  and  yet  believed  it 
better  to  resign  his  right  of  private  judgment  in  a 
point  positively  decided  by  the  church.  At  the  same 
time  he  had  no  wish  to  be  drawn  into  the  quarrel, 
though  vigorous  efforts  were  made  to  induce  him  to 
defend  the  Catholic  position.^*     In  the  latter  part  of 

soMyconius  to  Bullinger,  June  24,  1535,  Corpus  Ref.,  xxxviiib, 
col.  47. 

^^  Epistolae,  London,  1642,  xx,  60. 

^^  Episiolae,  1642,  xxx,  44. 

^3  Ibid,  xxx,  43. 

54  p  Toussain  to  Farel,  Sept.  18,  1525,  Herminjard  i,  385;  Botz- 
heim  to  Erasmus,  Feb.  2,  1527,  Forstemann  und  Giinther:  Brief e  an 
Erasmus,  1904,  p.  64;  G.  Thomas  to  Erasmus,  Aug.  31,  1527,  ibid., 
p.  85. 


I50  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

1526,  indeed,  he  began  a  work  against  Oecolampadius, 
but  gave  it  up,  as  he  wrote  Pirckheimer,  fearing  that  it 
would  profit  no  one  and  might  only  excite  tumult,  and 
seeing  that  Fisher  and  the  Parisians  had  already  re- 
futed the  Swiss  heretic.^^  When  Pirckheimer  himself 
wrote  against  Oecolampadius,  Erasmus  blamed  him 
for  seeming  to  wish  to  agree  with  Luther  rather  than 
with  the  church. ^^ 

On  the  other  hand  he  indignantly  resented  an  effort 
made  to  enlist  the  authority  of  his  name  in  support  of 
the  Swiss  doctrine.  Leo  Jud,  a  friend  of  Zwingli,  un- 
der the  pseudonym  of  Lewis  Leopold,  published  in 
German :  The  opinion  of  the  most  learned  Erasmus  of 
Rotterdam  and  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther  on  the  Supper.^'' 
The  ingenious  author  tries  to  prove  by  quotations  from 
Erasmus's  works  that  he  regards  the  bread  and  wine 
as  mere  symbols,  and  then  deduces  that  Luther  ought 
to  believe  the  same  because  he  believes  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  priest,  who  consecrates  the  ele- 
ments, and  any  layman. 

The  pamphlet  came  at  once  to  Erasmus's  attention 
and  on  May  15,  1526,  he  wrote  to  the  synod  assembled 
at  Baden  that  this  book  showed  both  ignorance  and 
malice,  and  that  it  was  a  shame  that  the  publication 
of  such  works,   once  a  capital  crime,  should  now  be 

^^  Pirckheimeri  Opera,  ed.  Goldast,  1610,  p.  286.  Dated  "postridie 
Lucae"   (Oct.  19),  1527. 

^^  Opera  Erasmi,  1703,  iii.  941. 

^"^  Des  Hochgelerten  Erasmi  von  Roterdam  und  Doctor  Martin 
Luthers  maynung  vom  Nachtmal  .  .  .  1526.  [Colophon]  April 
18,  1526.  Ludovicus  Leopold!  Pfarrer  zu  Leberaw.  I  use  the  copy 
in  the  Bodleian  Library,  Tract.  Luth.  46,  no.  16.  On  the  authorship 
see  Bibliotheca  Erasmiana,  1893,  iii.  32,  and  the  Vadianische  Brief- 
sammlung,  vi,  (1906)  p.  265,  where  Frecht  writes  to  Vadian,  Nov. 
3,  1543,  that  the  book  has  just  been  republished  and  that  some  think 
Leopold  is  Leo  Jud. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     151 

the  sport  of  men  who  claimed  to  represent  the  gospel. ^^ 
In  like  tenor  he  wrote  an  open  letter  ^^  to  all  lovers  of 
the  truth,  saying  that  the  deep  difference  between  the 
Reformers  and  himself  is  best  testified  by  them.  For 
himself,  he  wrote  again,  he  regarded  their  differences 
among  themselves  as  mutually  discreditable  and  pious- 
ly hoped  that  those  who  have  followed  Berengar  in 
his  error  will  also  follow  him  In  his  repentance.'"' 

In  private  letters  he  also  defended  himself.  To 
Conrad  Pellican,  an  evangelical  pastor,  he  wrote  that 
the  latter's  insinuations  that  they  had  the  same  belief 
on  the  eucharist  were  false.  'The  church  persuaded 
me  to  believe  the  gospel;  the  same  mistress  shall  teach 
me  to  interpret  the  words  of  the  gospel."  ^^  He  even 
expressed  his  willingness  to  be  torn  to  pieces  rather 
than  assert  that  the  sacrament  was  but  bread  and 
wine.^''  To  Pellican  he  wrote  again:  "You  threaten 
me  with  Zwingli's  pen;  in  a  matter  I  really  care  about 
I  fear  not  ten  Zwinglis.  See  how  the  world  is  drenched 
with  blood  for  the  sake  of  a  few  ambiguous  articles ! 
I  would  rather  dissemble  my  belief  in  ten  such  articles 
than  bring  on  such  evils."  ®^ 

Another  humanist  who  wrote  in  the  conservative 
sense  was  Paracelsus,^*  whose  pamphlets  On  the  Sup- 
per and  That  the  Flesh  and  Blood  are  in  the  Bread 
and  Wine,  appeared  in  the  early  thirties. 

The  Zwinglians  did  not  waste  time  in  refuting  the 

^^  Epistolae,  1642,  xix,  45. 

^^Ibid.,  XXX,  58,  June,  1526.  Cf.  Praestigiarum  Ubelli  cujusdam 
Detectio,  June,  1526,  Opera,  x,  1557  f. 

60  In  the  Hyperastistes,  Part  I,  1526,  Opera,  x,  1263. 

^^  Epistolae,  1642,  xix,  95. 

^^  Opera,  1703,  iii,  894;  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv,  395,  407  ff,  725. 

^^Epistolae,    1642,   xix,   96.     Compressed   translation. 

6*  A.  M.  Stoddart:  Paracelsus,  1911,  p.  255. 


152  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Catholics,  for  they  had  all  they  could  do  to  grapple 
with  their  fellow  Protestants.  By  this  time  all  efforts 
to  reconcile  them  had  become  vain.  When  the  Strass- 
burgers  sent  an  embassy  with  this  purpose  to  Luther 
In  1525,  he  curtly  remarked:  "One  party  or  the  other 
must  be  from  Satan.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  no  pettifog- 
ger, but  what  he  says  Is  certain."  ^^  "Posterity  will 
laugh,"  wrote  Capito  to  Ambrose  Blaurer,  "at  our 
quarrels  over  the  symbol  of  union."  ^^  "We  have 
come  to  the  point,"  observed  Gerbel  to  Bugenhagen, 
"that  from  the  symbol  of  supreme  love  to  us  arise 
such  hatreds,  such  wrath,  such  enmities!"  ^"^  Even  to 
Zwingll,  more  moderate  than  his  opponent,  Capito 
wrote:  "What  you  are  collecting  In  three  articles  to 
combat  the  bread-flesh  and  the  Impanate  God  is  a 
useful  labor,  but  I  fear  you  are  too  vehement  for  con- 
ditions of  peace."  ^^ 

To  Luther  Oecolampadlus  made  a  Reasonable 
Answer '^^  in  1526,  directed  at  the  Swabian  "Syngram- 
ma."  He  defended  Carlstadt  and  complained  that 
Luther  called  them  false  prophets  and  blasphemers 
because  they  had  said  his  God  was  a  "baked  God," 
and  a  "bread  God"  and  that  he  was  a  "God-flesh-eat- 
er," and  "God-blood-drinker."  For  his  own  part 
Oecolampadlus  believed  in  a  crucified  God,  not  in  a 
bread  God.  He  praised  Luther  In  everything  except 
in  the  sacrament. 

f      Zwingli  also  published  in  February,  1526,  A  Clear 
Explanation  of  Christ's  Supper.     Along  with  cogent 

65Baum,  335. 

66  Blaurer,  i.  124  f.  Nov.  26,  1525. 

67  Vogt,  60,  Jan.  1526. 

68  Feb.  3,  1526,  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  517. 

69  Billiche  Antivort  J.  Ecolampadij  auf  D.  Martin  Luthers  Bericht 
des  sacramentts  halb.     1526. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     153 

argument  in  support  of  his  opinion  he  alleged  that  its 
truth  had  been  revealed  to  him  in  a  dream.  This 
method  of  proof  unfortunately  impressed  Luther  with 
the  idea  that  Zwingli's  "spirit"  was  akin  to  that  of 
Miinzer  and  the  Zwickau  prophets  who  had  cultivated 
dreams  with  such  disastrous  results.  This'  strange 
relic  of  superstition  is  all  the  more  striking  in  that 
Zwingli  made  the  most  of  the  impossibility  of  the  ex- 
istence of  the  substance  of  the  flesh  without  its  being 
perceptible  to  the  senses.  He  compared  the  trope 
"this  is  my  body"  to  Christ's  saying  "I  am  the  true 
vine,"  a  mere  figure,  of  course,  and  not  literally  true.'^° 

These  works  had  so  much  success  that  their  authors 
were  able  to  prophecy  that  within  three  years  all  Chris- 
tendom would  be  converted  to  their  opinion.  A  con- 
ference held  at  Baden  in  June  showed  that  the  more 
respected  and  greater  part  of  the  ministers  agreed  with 
the  Swiss,  including  all  the  Strassburgers  but  Hedio. 
In  that  city,  Gerbel  said,  Luther's  books  were  seldom 
sold,  either  because  of  the  machinations  of  his  oppo- 
nents or  because  all  were  so  pleased  with  their  "signifi- 
cat"  that  they  despised  other  interpretations.  Every- 
one hoped  for  eventual  union,  for  it  was  thought  that 
the  schism  hurt  the  evangelical  cause  more  than  had 
the  Peasants'  Revolt.^"^  When  Luther's  works  were 
read,  it  was  said  "  to  be  with  the  purpose  of  confirming 
the  people  in  the  opinion  opposite  to  his. 

At  Nuremberg,  on  the  other  hand,  Zwingli's  works 
were  proscribed.  Their  author  protested  in  a  letter 
to  the  council  dated  July  2,  1526.     He  said  it  was  im- 

"^^  Kostlin-Kawerau,  ii.  72  ff. 

^1  Gerbel  to  Bugenhagen,  June  5,  Vogt,  62  f.  Gerbel  to  Luther, 
June  5,  Enders,  v.  356. 

72  Capito  to  Zwingli,  Oct.  17,  1526,    Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  749  f. 


154  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

possible  that  Christ's  body  could  be  eaten,  he  called 
the  elements  signs  only,  he  averred  that  John  and  the 
"whole  chorus  of  the  learned  ancients  until  400"  teach 
this,  and  that  the  contrary  belief  is  repugnant  to  the 
article  of  the  creed,  "He  ascended  into  heaven  and 
sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  God."  " 

This  letter  only  called  forth  another  rebuttal  from 
Pirckheimer  of  that  city,  directed  also  against  Oeco- 
lampadius.  In  reply  to  Zwingli's  last  argument  Pirck- 
heimer drew  from  Scotus  the  theory  of  the  ubiquity  of 
Christ's  body,  afterwards  taken  up  and  made  classic  by 
Luther.^*  The  work  itself  was  written,  says  Oecolam- 
padius,  "with  as  much  charity  as  the  devil  himself 
has."  He  wrote  an  answer  to  it,  which  he  thinks  "that 
insane  beast  [Pirckheimer]  will  try  to  eat  alive."  " 

From  Nuremberg,  on  the  other  side,  the  humanist 
John  Haner  wrote  Zwingli  that  the  word  imovmo'i  in  the 
Lord's  prayer  proved  that  Christ's  presence  in  the 
bread  should  be  understood  in  a  spiritual  sense. '^^ 

In  the  early  spring  of  1527  Zwingli  published  two 
polemics,  A  Friendly  Exegesis  of  Christ's  JVords,''''  in 
Latin,  and  A  Friendly  Appeasement  and  Rebuttal^  in 
German.'^®  As  his  arguments  have  by  this  time  become 
familiar  to  us,  they  need  not  be  repeated.  At  the 
close  of  the  Exegesis  he  says  that  persistence  in  Luth- 
er's error  becomes  impiety.  Both  works  he  sent  to 
Luther  with  a  letter  of  April  i,  ill  calculated,  by  its 
supercilious  tone,  to  allay  the  wrath  of  the  Wittenberg 
professor,  to  whom  he  said:     "You  have  produced 

^3  Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.  634.  ff. 

74  £.  R.  E.,  V.  568. 

'^^  To  Zwingli,  Feb.  28,  1527,  Corpus  Ref.,  xcvi.  59. 

''^  Corpus  Ref.,  xcvi.  65. 

77  Schuler  und  Schulthess,  iii.  459  ff. 

''^  Ibid.,  ii,  part  ii,  i  ff. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     155 

nothing  on  this  subject  worthy  either  of  yourself  or  of 
the  Christian  reHgion  and  yet  your  ferocity  daily  in- 
creases." "Zwingli  has  sent  me  his  foolish  book," 
wrote  Luther  on  May  4,  "together  with  a  letter  from 
his  own  hand  worthy  of  his  haughty  spirit.  So  gentle 
was  he,  raging,  foaming,  and  threatening,  that  he 
seems  to  me  incurable  and  condemned  by  manifest 
truth.  But  my  comprehensive  book  has  profited 
many.    ^^ 

The  work  alluded  to  appeared  almost  simultaneous- 
ly with  Zwingli's  under  the  title :  That  the  Words,  This 
is  my  Body,  still  stand  fast  against  the  Ranting  Spirits.^° 
After  stating  that  he  had  already  treated  the  matter  so 
thoroughly  that  no  one  could  go  astray  in  it  save  he 
who  wished  to  err,  Luther  blamed  the  "famous  humil- 
ity" of  the  ranters,  as  being,  in  reality,  nothing  but 
arrogance  and  scorn.  His  first  section  is  an  exegesis 
of  the  words  of  institution  with  the  insistence  that  they 
be  taken  literally.  Zwingli  says  "is"  means  "signifies," 
and  Oecolampadius  that  "body"  means  "sign  of  my 
body,"  by  which  they  are  falsifying  Scripture.  One 
could  make  any  text  mean  anything  by  this  method. 
You  might  just  as  well  say^  that  the  first  verse  of 
Genesis  meant  "In  the  beginning  the  cuckoo  ate  the 
hedge-sparrows  with  feathers  and  all,"  and  defend  it 
by  averring  that  "God"  meant  "cuckoo,"  "made"; 
meant  "ate,"  and  "heaven  and  earth"  meant  "hedge- 
sparrows  with  feathers  and  all."  If  anyone  asks, 
"What  devil  suggested  that  to  you?"  the  answer  is 
plain:  the  same  devil  that  suggested  their  exegesis  to 
the  Swiss  reformers.     No,  they  have  nothing  for  them 

''^  Smith,  Luther,  242;  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii.  398  f. 
80  Weimar,  xxiii.  38  ff. 


156  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

but  simple  blasphemy,  by  which  they  strangle  Christ 
and  the  church ;  and  then  they  say  Luther  ought  to  keep 
peace  with  them ! 

The  second  section  of  this  "comprehensive  work" 
is  devoted  to  proving  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body.  The 
third  part  is  an  extraordinarily  extended  exegesis  of 
John  vi,  followed  by  proofs  from  the  fathers,  Augus- 
tine, Tertullian,  Irenaeus,  Hilarius,  and  Cyprian.  The 
final  section  emphasizes  the  use  and  necessity  of  the 
actual  eating  of  the  Saviour's  body. 

The  work  produced  various  effects.  At  Strassburg, 
Hedio  was  of  the  hopeful  opinion  that  it  showed  that 
the  two  sides  were  not  so  far  apart,  and  that  such  men 
of  God  as  were  Luther,  Zwingli,  and  Oecolampadius 
might  well  be  reconciled.  Another  person,  unnamed, 
made  bold  to  remark  that  this  pamphlet  —  The  An- 
tiranter,^^  as  it  was  called  —  had  in  it  nothing  of  Paul's 
spirit. 

Zwingli  was  greatly  exasperated  by  the  work's  tone, 
and  said  that  "its  whole  contents  was  nothing  but  lies, 
slander,  sycophancy  and  suspicion."  ^^  He  composed 
a  reply  to  it,  entitled,  That  the  Words  of  Christ,  "This 
is  my  Body,*'  still  have  the  same  old  Sense,  and  that 
Martin  Luther  with  his  last  Book  has  not  proved  his 
own  and  the  pope's  Sense.^^  The  argument  brought 
forth  no  new  points.  In  tone  it  was,  quite  naturally, 
sharper  than  anything  that  had  previously  come  from 
the  Zurich  reformer's  pen.  It  was  published  in  June, 
1527. 

Luther's  answer,  a  huge  Confession  on  Christ's 

81  "Antischwermerus."  Gerbel  to  Luther,  end  of  May,  1527, 
Enders,  vi.  58  f. 

82  Smith,  Luther,  242. 

83  Schuler  und  Schulthess,  ii.  part  ii,  16  ff. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     157 

Supper,"^*  appeared  in  the  February  following.  He 
expressed  his  joy  that  his  words  have  so  greatly  an- 
gered Satan,  by  which  sign  he  knows  that  they  have 
done  much  good.  His  argument,  too,  is  the  same  old 
one,  an  insistence  on  taking  the  words  of  institution 
literally,  an  endeavor  to  show  that  the  real  presence 
is  possible,  and  a  sharp  critique  of  Zwingll's  philosophy 
and  exegesis. 

This  polemic  only  increased  the  rage  without  shak- 
ing the  convictions  of  the  sacramentarians.  Zwingli 
judged  that  it  was  "a  fog  through  which  one  cannot 
clearly  see  the  mystery  of  Christ,  an  example  of  deny- 
ing what  one  has  affirmed  a  little  before,  a  spouting 
geyser  of  enormous  cursing."  ^^  Again,  he  complained  ^^ 
that  Luther  incautiously  murders  reason,  human  and 
divine,  which  otherwise  might  easily  have  come  to  her 
own  among  the  pious.  He  fears  that  any  answer  will 
be  in  vain,  as  Luther,  a  true  Scotist  and  Thomist,  closes 
his  ears. 

He  and  Oecolampadius  nevertheless  produced  re- 
buttals, printed  together  as  Two  Answers  to  Martin 
Luther's  Book,  called  a  Confessions'^  The  authors 
merely  show  that  they  have  exhausted  the  arguments 
on  their  side,  as  they  are  not  able  to  advance  fresh 
reasons. 

By  this  time  the  Lutherans  were  ready  to  make  com- 
mon cause  with  the  Catholics  against  the  newer  sects. 
The  Diet  of  Spires,  passed  a  decree,  on  April  22,  1529, 
that  those  who  denied  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 

s*  Weimar,  xxvi.   241. 

8^  To  Ambrose  Blaurer,  July  21,  Blaurer,  i.  162. 

8^  To  Conrad  Som,  August  30,  1528,  Stahelin:  Brief  aus  der 
Reformationszeit,  Basel,  1887,  p.  21. 

s"  Both  are  republished  in  Walch's  edition  of  Luther's  works,  xx. 
cols.  1538-1884. 


158  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

should  not  be  represented  in  the  estates  of  the  Empire.®^ 
A  distinction  was  thus  made  in  favor  of  the  Lutherans, 
to  whom  limited  toleration  was  granted. 

The  political  weakness  of  the  Protestants  due  to 
division  made  their  statesmen  desire  a  cessation  of 
their  mutual  animosities  in  order  to  enable  them  to 
make  front  against  the  common  foe.  Philip  of  Hesse 
had  cherished  the  idea  of  a  conference  ever  since  it  was 
suggested  to  him,  at  the  Diet  of  Spires  of  1526,  by 
James  Sturm.  The  notorious  Duke  Ulrich  of  Wiirt- 
temberg  was  also  anxious  to  heal  the  schism.  Luther 
was  approached  on  the  subject  in  1527,  but  refused  to 
consider  it.®^  Notwithstanding  the  increased  bitter- 
ness of  the  war  of  pens,  making  Luther  feel  more  and 
more  deeply  the  hopelessness  of  harmony,  yet  Philip 
kept  urging  him  to  It  until  finally.  In  the  summer  of 
1529,  he  got  his  consent.  It  was  now  Melanchthon's 
turn  to  raise  objections.  He  thought  that  a  confer- 
ence with  Oecolampadius  might  be  good,  but  not  with 
Zwingll,  and  that  if  there  were  a  meeting  "some  hon- 
orable and  reasonable  papists"  ought  to  be  present.^" 

The  objections  of  all  parties  were  finally  overcome, 
and  a  meeting  was  arranged  which  took  place  October 
1-3,  1529,  at  Philip's  castle  at  Marburg.  As  a  basis 
of  discussion  Luther  and  Melanchthon  drew  up,  before 
they  went,  a  confession  of  faith  commonly  called  the 
Schwabach  Articles,  in  which  their  differences  with  the 
Zwingllans,  particularly  in  the  loth  article,  on  the  Sup- 
per, were  sharply  set  forth. ®^ 

Besides  the  principal  Saxon  and  Swiss  reformers,  a 

ssMirbt,   198   f. 

89  Schubert  in  Z.  K.  G.,  xxix.  330  ff. 

90  Corpus  Ref.,  i.  1067. 

91  Schubert,  p.  20  ff. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     159 

number  of  divines  from  South  German  cities  were 
present.  The  first  conferences,  on  October  i,  were 
private:  Luther  with  Oecolampadius,  Melanchthon 
with  Zwingli,  and  Bucer  and  Hedio  with  Brentz  and  C/]L>^,lH^" 
Osiander.  These  were  followed,  on  October  2  and  3, 
by  a  public  debate  between  Luther  on  the  one  side  and 
Zwingli  and  Oecolampadius  on  the  other.^^  The  ar- 
guments were  the  old,  familiar  ones.  Luther  wrote 
on  the  table  before  him  "This  is  my  body,"  and  re- 
peated over  and  over  that  it  was  all-sufficient.  Zwingli 
and  Oecolampadius  again  countered  this  with  the  verse 
"The  flesh  profiteth  nothing,"  and  Luther's  theories 
about  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  with  the  article 
"He  ascended  into  heaven."  Here  it  became  more 
clear  than  ever  —  not  indeed  to  those  present,  but  to 
us  —  that  the  reason  for  these  interminable  beatings 
about  the  bush  lay  in  the  fact  that  both  parties  started 
from  a  false  premise,  namely  that  reason  and  Scripture 
could  be  reconciled.  If  that  is  postulated,  then,  when 
an  incomprehensible  statement  is  made  in  the  Bible, 
there  are  only  two  ways  of  disposing  of  it.  The  first 
is  to  say  that  the  proposition  is  true,  though  repugnant 
to  reason,  an  actual  fact  though  impossible.  The  sec- 
ond is  to  explain  away  the  meaning  of  the  text  and  to 
show  that  it  really  signifies  something  else  than  what 
it  says.  Luther  had  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  the 
Bible  really  taught  that  the  bread  and  the  body 
of  Christ  were  in  some  manner  identical;  where  he 
failed  was  in  showing  how  this  was  possible.  Zwingli 
was  equally  able  to  prove  that  the  real  presence  was 

^-  Eight  contemporary  accounts  printed,  Weimar,  xxx,  part  iii, 
94  ff.  Also  consult  S.  M.  Jackson:  Zvjingli,  p.  315.  Smith:  "A  Decade 
of  Luther  Study,"  Harvard   Theological  Revieiv,  xiv,   1921,  p.  119. 


i6o  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

inconceivable  and  absurd;  his  difficulty  lay  in  explain- 
ing away  the  categorical  statements  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. And  so  all  parties  retained  their  former  opin- 
ions. 

Although  next  to  nothing  had  been  accomplished, 
Philip  was  anxious  to  have  something  to  show  for  his 
trouble  and  so  induced  the  divines  present  to  draw  up  a 
statement  of  their  common  beliefs.  Fourteen  of  the 
resultant  Marburg  Articles  deal  with  points  agreed  on 
by  both  sides;  the  fifteenth  states  that  they  are  unable 
to  agree  on  "the  bodily  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood"  and  that  each  side  prays  for  enlightenment. 
These  articles  were  signed  by  Luther,  Jonas,  Melanch- 
thon,  Osiander,  Agricola,  Brentz,  Oecolampadius, 
Zwingli,  Bucer  and  Hedio. 

When,  however,  it  came  to  personal  intercourse, 
Luther  refused  the  proferred  hand  of  Zwingli  with  the 
remark,  especially  stinging  on  account  of  its  previous 
connotation,  that  the  Swiss  had  a  different  spirit  from 
his  own.  The  Landgrave  did  all  he  could,  wrote 
Bucer,  to  make  the  opponents  friends,  but  the  Lord 
willed  that  Luther  would  have  no  peace  with  them 
save  what  he  had  with  Turks  and  Jews.  Melanch- 
thon  was  said  to  be  even  more  unconciliatory,  if  pos- 
sible.^^ 

Before  leaving,  the  Wittenbergers  handed  Philip 
a  memorial  supporting  their  contention  by  quotations 
from  Hilary,  Chrysostom,  Cyprian,  Irenaeus,  The- 
ophylact,  and  Cyril.®*  Zwingli,  on  his  part,  induced 
the  Landgrave  to  remove  the  prohibition  of  his  books 
in  Hesse. ®^     In  other  small  ways,  too,  the  conference 

93  Bucer  to  A.  Blaurer,  Oct.  i8,  1529,  Blaurer,  i.  197  f. 

94  De  W^ette,  iii.     508. 

95  Kessler,  325. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     i6i 

indirectly  advanced  the  cause  of  union.  The  articles 
discussed  at  Marburg  formed  the  basis  of  the  Con- 
fessio  TetrapoUtana  handed  in  by  the  South  Germans 
at  Augsburg  in  1530.  Perhaps  the  subsequent  agree- 
ments, at  Wiirttemberg  in  1534  and  at  Wittenberg 
two  years  later  were  in  some  way  helped  by  the  Mar- 
burg colloquy.®'' 

But  at  the  time  the  two  parties  seemed  as  far  apart 
as  ever.  While  Zwingli  spoke  contemptuously  of  what 
had  been  accomplished,  Luther  said  that  all  union  be- 
tween them  would  be  a  pretence.®''  The  difference,  he 
thought,®^  was  greater  than  that  which  separated  the 
Eastern  and  the  Western  Catholics. 

In  November  or  December  1529,  the  Saxons  theo- 
logians drew  up  a  strong  memorial  advising  their 
leaders  to  have  neither  political  nor  other  dealings 
with  the  Swiss.  An  alliance  might  be  made  even  with 
the  heathen,  it  was  said,  but  not  with  the  Zwinglians, 
as  Paul,  in  Titus  iii,  expressly  commands  us  to  shun 
heretics.  The  Zwinglians  despise  the  clear  word  of 
God  and  cannot  be  considered  weaker  brethren.®® 

A  position  quite  consistent  with  this  was  taken  by 
the  Lutherans  at  Augsburg  in  1530,  when  much  was 
conceded  to  the  Catholics.  "God  is  my  witness," 
wrote  Melanchthon  in  August  to  the  Emperor's  preach- 
er, Giles,  "that  I  desire  peace  for  no  other  reason  so 
much  as  that  I  see,  if  there  is  not  peace,  it  shall  come 
to  pass  that  we  shall  be  joined  with  the  Zwinglians."  ^°° 
The  tenth  article  of  the  first  part  of  the  Augsburg 

96  Schubert,  Z  K.  G..  xxxx.  66  if,  77. 
9^  Enders,  viii.  354. 

98  Schubert,  Z.  K.  G.,  xxx.  63. 

99  Schirrmacher,   144  ff. 
190  Schirrmacher,  247. 


1 62  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Confession,  as  printed  in  1531,  expressly  condemns 
those  who  teach  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
not  truly  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper/"^  It  is  prob- 
able that  in  the  lost  original  form  of  the  Confession 
the  agreement  of  Lutheran  and  Catholic  and  the  dis- 
agreement with  the  sacramentarians  was  still  more 
strongly  stated."^ 

After  the  Marburg  conference  Zwingli's  views  un- 
derwent no  essential  change,  though  he  perhaps  became 
a  little  less  intransigeant.  His  Fidei  Ratio  of  July, 
1530,  expresses  the  belief  that  the  true  body  of  Christ 
is  present  by  contemplation  of  faith,  though  not  essen- 
tially or  really,  and  not  in  a  manner  allowing  it  to  be 
eaten,  as  the  papists  "and  those  who  look  back  at  the 
flesh-pots  of  Egypt,"  i.e.  the  Lutherans,  think."^  A 
similar  spiritual  and  sacramental  eating  of  Christ's 
body  is  maintained  in  the  Fidei  Christianae  Expositio 

ofi53i.'"* 

Shortly  after  writing  this  Zwingli  lost  his  life  in  the 

battle  of  Cappel  (Oct.  11,  1531)  and  Oecolampadius 

did  not  survive  him  long.     Luther  always  insisted  in 

regarding  their  fate  as  a  judgment  of  God,  and  a  great 

triumph  for  his  own  faction.    Zwingli  was  damned  for 

his  errors,  said  he,  or,  if  God  did  save  his  soul,  he  did 

it  extra  regulam}°^ 

Of  Zwingli's  death  Luther  said:  "God's  treatment 

of  our  adversaries  made  clear  to  me  at  Coburg  the 

meaning  of  those  words   in  the   decalogue,   'I   am   a 

jealous    God.'     For    the    punishment    meted    out    to 

loiKidd,  264. 

102  "Abendmahl,"  R.  G.  G.,  i.  74. 

io3Kidd,  473. 

104  Ibid.,  44  f. 

105  Smith,  Luther,  289  ff. 


ZWINGLI  AND  OECOLAMPADIUS     163 

them  is  not  so  cruel  as  our  defence  is  necessary.  Thus, 
they  say,  Zwingli  has  perished,  whose  error,  had  it 
prevailed,  would  have  destroyed  us  along  with  the 
church.  It  is  a  judgment  of  God  .  .  .  The 
Zwinglians  called  God  'a  God  made  bread  (impana-  ; 
turn),'  but  now  it  will  come  to  pass  that  he  will  be  an 
iron  God  to  them.  Oecolampadius  called  the  Lord's 
Supper  [as  celebrated  by  the  Lutherans]  the  feast  of 
Thyestes,  a  flesh-eating,  blood-drinking,  &c.  We  now 
say  to  them :  'Here  you  have  what  you  have  sought. 
God  once  said  that  he  would  not  hold  him  guiltless 
who  took  his  name  in  vain.'  It  was  exceedingly  blas- 
phemous for  them  to  call  God  'made  bread,'  and  us 
flesh-eaters,   blood-drinkers    and   God-devourers."  ^°® 


1°^  Conversations  ivit/i  Luther,  p.  14  f. 


VIII.     SCHWENCKFELD 

If  the  humanists  represented  in  general  the  con- 
servative dogma  of  the  real  presence,  the  numerous 
sects  known  collectively  as  Anabaptists  were  for 
the  most  part  liberals  in  this  regard/  It  was  merely 
because  their  other  dogmas,  considered  by  the  ortho- 
dox still  more  objectionable,  cast  this  one  into  the 
shade  that  they  as  a  rule  took  no  more  prominent  part 
in  the  sacramentarian  dispute.  In  the  same  year  in 
which  the  colloquy  at  Marburg  was  held,  another  de- 
bate on  the  same  question  was  ordered  by  the  King  of 
Denmark  at  Flensburg.^  There,  on  April  8,  1529, 
in  his  presence  and  in  that  of  Prince  Christian  of 
Norway,  of  the  Provost  of  Reinebecke  and  of  other 
dignitaries,  some  Lutheran  theologians,  headed  by 
Bugenhagen,  maintained  the  real  presence  against  the 
attacks  of  Melchior  Hoffmann  and  other  Anabaptists. 
Hoffmann  said  that  all  who  believed  that  the  bread  was 
really  Christ  were  false  prophets.  After  an  acrimoni- 
ous controversy,  one  of  the  radicals,  J.  Hegge,  con- 
fessed that  he  had  been  wrong. 

A  sectarian  claiming  independence  of  all  parties  was 
Casper  Schwenckfeld  of  Silesia.  Though  professing 
to  find  the  "Middle  Way"  between  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  in  reality  he  had  several  points  or  resem- 

^  One  author  (P.  Althaus:  Zur  Charakteristik  der  evangelischen 
Gebetsliteratur  im  Reformationsjahrundert,  1914,  pp.  26  ff)  has  made 
the  statement,  incomprehensible  to  me,  that  the  eucharistic  prayers  of 
the  Anabaptists  are  Erasmian  and  represent  a  Calvinistic  view. 

"^  Acta  der  Disputation  zu  Flensburg.     1529. 


SCHWENCKFELD  165 

blance  with  the  Anabaptists.^  He  was  precipitated  in- 
to the  controversy  by  the  publication,  in  1524,  by 
Oecolampadius,  of  one  of  his  letters  containing  some 
anti-Lutheran  views.  In  brief  these  may  be  described 
as  follows.  His  starting  point  was  a  revolt  against 
the  theory  of  the  magical  effect  of  the  sacraments  as 
a  means  of  grace,  and  an  opus  operatiim.  This,  to 
him,  seemed  an  absurdity,  and  he  refused  to  call  either 
of  the  sacraments  means  of  grace,  though  he  said  they 
were  serviceable  to  Christian  living.  So  little  stress, 
however,  did  he  lay  upon  them,  that  he  said  neither 
baptism  nor  communion  were  necessary,  and  advised 
his  followers  to  abstain  from  the  latter  during  and  on 
account  of  the  battle  that  raged  around  the  Lord's 
table.  God,  said  he,  could  effect  salvation  without 
external  appliances.* 

Quite  consistently,  Schwenckfeld  rejected  Luther's 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  which  he  called  "im- 
panation"  or  "Einbrotung  vi  verborum."  In  1525 
Schwenckfeld  consulted  his  more  learned  friend  Kraut- 
wald  on  this  point,  and  was  at  first  opposed  by  the 
latter  on  dialectical  grounds.  After  three  days  of 
prayer,  however,  Krautwald  received  a  divine  revela- 
tion that  Schwenckfeld  was  right.  Thus  encouraged, 
the  Silesian  proceeded  to  Wittenberg,  where  he  had  an 
interview  with  Luther.^  Shortly  afterwards  he  wrote 
him,  "It  is  impossible  that  the  pope's  kingdom  shall 
be  cast  down  while  this  article  of  the  flesh  and  blood 
in  the  sacrament  of  bread  and  wine  stands."  ^   Strange 

^  Loetscher,  7  flF. 

^  Loetscher,    9,    12    ff,    30    ff.     On    Schwenckfeld,    Luther's    Corres- 
pondence, ii.  p.  367;  R.  M.  Jones:  Spiritual  Reformers,  1914,  pp.  64  ff. 
s  Corpus  Schivenckfeldianorum,  ii.  240  ff. 
^  Enders,  v.  277  f. 


1 66  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

to  say,  he  was  encouraged  by  his  interview;  the  only 
explanation  for  this  that  I  have  found  is  offered  by 
the  editor  of  the  Corpus  Schwenckfeldianoriim  in  the 
phrase  that  "Luther  wiped  his  feet  on  his  own  mental 
reservation."  The  Wittenberg  professor  was  in  doubt 
as  to  their  relations,  writing,  as  he  did  not  long  after- 
wards, "Either  you  or  we  must  be  the  devil's  bonds- 
men, because  we  both  claim  the  words  of  God."  '' 

Like  all  those  who  have  rejected  the  real  presence, 
Schwenckfeld  had  to  find  some  strained  exegesis  of  the 
"Hoc  est  corpus  meum."  He  inverted  the  order  of 
the  words,  making  "hoc"  a  "spiritual  demonstrative," 
and  construing,  "My  body  is  this,  scil.  bread  or  true 
nourishment  for  the  soul."  But  he  still  clung  to  a 
spiritual  element  in  the  sacrament,  and  objected  to 
Zwingli's  exegesis  of  "is"  as  "signifies"  as  too  rational- 
istic.® His  relations  with  Luther  did  not  improve  with 
years.  In  1543  the  reformer  wrote  him  referring  to 
his  eucharistic  doctrine  that  "formerly  he  had  kindled 
a  fire  in  Silesia  which  was  not  yet  quenched  and  which 
would  burn  him  eternally."  ^ 


■^  Loetcsher,  52. 

SLoetscher,  50.     Corpus  Ref.,  xcv.   567   ff.     Zwingli  to  Krautwald 
and  Schwenckfeld,  April  17,  1526. 
^  Dec.  6,  1542,  Enders,  xv.  275  f. 


IX.     BUCER 

Martin  Bucer  seemed  born  to  belie  the  saying  that 
peacemakers  are  blessed.  In  his  life-long  effort  to 
reconcile  the  two  main  wings  of  Protestantism  he 
achieved  only  a  slight  and  temporary  success,  while 
he  endured  many  hard  rebuffs  from  each  side. 

No  sooner  was  the  tempest  gathering  in  the  writings 
of  Carlstadt,  than  Bucer  began  to  pour  oil  on  the 
troubled  waters.  In  a  pamphlet  published  in  Decem- 
ber, 1524,^  he  deprecated  the  quarrel  over  the  sacra- 
ment as  useless  and  evil,  and  said  that  it  was  much  as 
if  a  father  had  given  his  sons  a  golden  beaker  as  a 
memorial  of  him,  and  then  they  did  nothing  but  quarrel 
over  its  material  and  cost.  At  the  same  time  he 
showed  his  inclination  to  Carlstadt's  opinion,  though 
rebutting  his  interpretation  of  tovto.  For  the  former 
he  drew  down  on  his  head  Luther's  wrath,  in  a  manner 
graphically  described  in  his  Commentary  on  the  first 
three  Gospels.'^ 

In  the  preface  to  the  fourth  volume  of  Luther's  Postilla,  which  I 
translated  into  Latin  for  the  use  of  our  brethren  in  Italy,  I  said 
that  as  all  the  works  of  the  Lord  were  true,  and  as  bodily  things 
always  appeared  what  they  were,  then,  did  the  Lord  really  and 
truly  turn  the  bread  into  his  body,  it  ought  thus  to  appear.  Luther 
took  this  worse  than  I  should  have  believed  possible,  and  for  this 
cause  published  against  me  an  epistle  than  which  you  will  see  nothing 

^  Grund  und  Ursach  aus  gottlicher  Schrift  der  Neuerungen.  Barge, 
ii.  231. 

2  Enarationum  in  Evangelia  Matthaei,  Marci  et  Lucae  libri  duo. 
1527,  quoted.  Corpus  Ref.,  xcvi.  61,  note  12.  Luther's  letter  to  Her- 
wagen,  Sept.  13,  1526,  Enders,  v.  384  S;  Luther's  Correspondence,  ii, 
377  ff- 


1 68  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

more  filled  with  calumny  and  cursing.  .  .  When  I  wrote  that  the 
corporeal  miracles  of  the  Lord  always  appeared  corporeally  to  us, 
he,  carried  away  with  impotent  rage,  omitted  [in  quotation]  the  word 
"corporeal,"  in  which  was  the  whole  force  of  my  argument.  Then 
he  mocked  me  with  great  contempt  and  a  bitter  laugh.  .  .  If  this 
is  not  to  calumniate  —  or,  shall  I  say?  to  rage  —  I  know  not  what  it 
is. 

Another  attempt  of  Bucer  to  harmonize  in  a  pamph- 
let of  1528,  called  A  Comparison  of  the  Opinion  of 
Luther  and  his  Opponents  on  the  Supper  of  Christ, 
was  judged  by  the  Wittenberger  as  poisonous.  As  he 
already  knew  Bucer's  worthlessness,  he  said,  he  was 
not  surprised  that  he  had  dared  to  twist  the  meaning 
of  Augustine.  "Christ  will  plague  these  vipers,"  he 
added,  "and  either  convert  them  or  give  them  what 
they  deserve."  He  commiserated  his  correspondent, 
who  lived  at  Strassburg,  for  having  to  dwell  among 
such  wild  beasts,  vipers,  lions,  and  leopards,  like  Dan- 
iel in  the  den.^ 

At  Marburg  Bucer  played  his  usual  vacillating  part. 
At  a  conference  with  Brentz  and  Osiander  he  admitted 
that  "Christ's  body  was  in  the  supper  and  was  given 
with  the  bread  to  believers,"  but  after  a  conference 
with  the  Zwinglians  he  retracted  this.*  At  the  same 
time  he  drew  up  a  confession  as  a  pendant  to  the 
Schwabach  articles,  in  which  he  professed  to  abide  by 
the  simple  words  "that  is  my  body."  As  even  Luther, 
said  he,  confesses  that  the  bread  remains  bread,  and 
rejects  transubstantiation,  he  cannot  accept  Luther's 
opinion  that  Christ  is  with  or  in  the  bread. ^ 

At  Augsburg  he  exerted  himself  more  streneously 

3  To  Gerbel,  July  28,  1528.  Enders,  vi.  312  f,  Luther's  Corres- 
pondence, ii.  450  f. 

4  Schubert  in  Z.  K.  G.,  xxx.  62  f . 

5  Schubert:  Biindnis   und  Bekenntnis,   179. 


BUCER  169 

to  further  the  union  so  necessary  for  the  protection 
of  the  Protestants.  Although  he  wrote  Briick  that 
Luther  said  the  body  of  Christ  was  torn  by  the  teeth 
of  communicants,  he  wrote  Luther  that,  after  reading 
Oecolampadius's  Dialogue,  he  has  come  to  beheve 
there  was  no  real  difference  between  its  author  and 
the  Wittenberg  Reformers.  Melanchthon,  he  said, 
had  digested  their  opinion  into  articles,  which  he  sent. 
The  substance  of  his  contention  was  that  Christ  is 
present  in  the  supper  to  the  mind  but  not  to  the  body.« 
As  Luther  did  not  answer  this  appeal,  Bucer  visited 
him  at  Coburg,  and  pressed  him  to  consent  to  an  agree- 
ment. At  the  interview,  on  September  18,  Luther  de- 
clared himself  content  to  say  that  the  soul  only  enjoyed 
the  heavenly  food  and  that  the  mouth  ate  only  bread, 
but  he  declined  to  entertain  proposals  for  a  treaty  with 
the  sacramentarians.^ 

Bucer  insisted  on  sending  him,  nevertheless,  a  con- 
fession in  very  conciliatory  terms,  which  Luther  ac- 
knowledged with  approval  and  thanks,  on  January  22, 
1 53 1,  though  he  still  declined  to  admit  a  full  union 
with  the  other  party.«  When  Bucer  wrote  insisting 
that  he  believed  in  the  real  presence,^  Luther  only 
replied  that  of  him  personally  he  entertained  some 
hopes,  but  not  of  the  others.'° 

The  difficulties  were  not  all  on  one  side.  Bucer 
confided  to  Ambrose  Blaurer,  on  Feb.  21,  1531,  that 
though  he  hoped  for  union,  he  dared  not  mention  it 
to  Zwingli,  who  was  irritated  by  the  letters  of  certain 

•'Aug.  25,  1530,  Enders,  viii.  209. 

^  Baum,  473. 

s  Smith,  Luther,  288  f. 

^  Enders,  viii.  355  ff. 

"To  Frosch,  March  28,  1531,  Smith,  Luther,  289. 


170  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

persons  and  would  not  accommodate  himself  to  any 
union." 

Luther's  loudly  expressed  joy  over  the  defeat  of 
Cappel  and  the  death  of  his  rivals  did  not  make  pro- 
jects of  union  easier.  In  a  letter  to  Duke  Albert  of 
Prussia,  written  in  February  or  March,  1532,  and 
published  immediately,  he  not  only  affirmed  that 
Zwingli's  catastrophe  was  a  judgment  of  God,  but  he 
warned  the  duke  not  to  tolerate  the  sacramentarians 
In  his  land,  by  which  both  his  own  soul  would  be 
damned  and  the  Christian  church  suffer  a  hard  blow. 
"For,"  he  adds,  in  words  that  sound  strange  from  an 
Innovator,  "we  must  not  trifle  with  articles  of  faith  so 
long  and  unanimously  held  by  Christendom."  ^^ 

It  is  not  remarkable  that  when  the  clergymen  of 
Zurich  were  approached  by  Bucer,  they  replied  that 
they  were  perfectly  willing  to  have  Luther  agree  with 
them,  but  that  they  had  not  yet  been  able  to  observe 
that  he  did  so.  Although  they  resented  his  letter  to 
Albert,  they  said  they  would  not  attack  him  in  pulpit 
or  in  synod."  On  February  9  of  the  next  year,  how- 
ever, Leo  Jud  wrote  that  they  ought  to  attack  Luther 
as  he  erred  not  only  on  the  sacrament  but  on  other 
articles.^* 

So  sensitive  was  Luther  himself  to  any  accusation 
that  he  agreed  with  the  Zwinglians  that,  when  his 
book  On  Private  Masses  against  the  papists  was 
thought  to  show  that  he  did  so,  he  promptly  published 
a  letter  to  deny  the  impeachment.^^     To  the  Town 

^1  Blaurer,  i.  246,  cf.  239. 

12  Weimar,  xxx,  part  iii,  p.  547;  Smith,  Luther,  291  f. 

13  May  8,  1533.     Barge,  ii.  595. 
i*Kolde,  Analecta,  204. 

1^  Ein  Brief  D.  M.  Luthers  von  seinem  Buck  der  fVinkelmessen, 
1534.     JVeimar,  xxxviii.  257   ff. 


BUCER  171 

Council  of  Augsburg  he  wrote  expressly  to  contradict 
the  claim  of  their  clergy  to  agree  with  him,  and  to  beg 
the  Council  to  forbid  these  ministers  so  to  cheat  the 
people. ^^ 

Even  Bucer  confessed  that  Luther's  rage  against 
all  who  differed  with  him  was  intolerable,  that  he  cursed 
the  most  pious  men  and  those  who  had  been  most 
useful  to  the  church,^^  and  that  no  rocks  were  harder, 
nothing  more  obstinate  than  some  of  his  followers/^ 

The  suggestion  of  the  possibility  of  union,  even  in 
these  discouraging  circumstances,  perhaps  came  from 
the  signing  of  the  Concord  of  Wiirttemberg,  Aug.  2, 
1534,  by  the  Zwinglian  Ambrose  Blaurer  and  the  Lu- 
theran Schnepf.  This  confession  taught  that  the  "body 
and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly,  i.e.  substantially  and  es- 
sentially, but  not  quantitatively,  qualitatively  or  locally, 
present  and  exhibited  in  the  Supper."  ^^ 

Philip  of  Hesse  was  again  the  moving  spirit  of 
harmony.  On  September  12,  1534,  he  wrote  to  Mel- 
anchthon  that  he  has  heard  that  the  other  would  wil- 
lingly see  the  schism  on  the  sacrament  taken  away. 
He  spoke  of  the  work  of  Schnepf  in  Wiirttemberg.^" 
A  few  days  later  he  proposed  a  meeting  of  Melanch- 
thon  and  Bucer  at  Cassel.^^  Further  negotiations  with 
Luther  developed  this  plan  and  the  meeting  actually 
took  place  in  the  last  days  of  December. ^^  Luther 
feared  that  Melanchthon  would  prove  too  yielding, 
because  he  knew  that  his  colleague  had  been  much  im- 
pressed by  Oecolampadius'  Dialogue  showing  what  the 

1^  August  8,  1533,  Enders,  ix.  331,  Erlangen,  Iv.  21. 
!'■  April   9,   1534,   Kolde,  Analecta,  205. 
1^  To  Margaret  Blaurer,  Aug.  9,  1534,  Blaurer,  ii.  809. 
"Kidd,  305. 

20  Gundlach,  65  flF. 

21  Ibid.,  68. 

22  Enders,  x.  72,  78. 


172  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Fathers  thought  of  the  Sacrament,  which  he  had  re- 
ceived at  Augsburg  in  1530.  He  accordingly  examined 
all  the  citations  from  the  ancients  which  had  shaken 
his  friend,  and  wrote  an  answer  to  each.^^  Further, 
he  drew  up  an  instruction  on  the  Supper  to  serve  as  a 
basis  of  negotiation  with  Bucer.  In  this  he  first  pro- 
tests against  the  assumption  that  neither  side  under- 
stands the  other.  The  only  alternatives  are  for  his 
opponents  to  concede  that  Christ's  body  is  truly  pres- 
ent, or  for  him  to  admit  that  only  bread  is  eaten, 
which  would  be  against  his  conscience  and  also  useless. 
It  would  be  better,  he  says,  for  things  to  remain  as  they 
are.  In  strong  terms  he  closes:  "The  body  of  Christ 
is  said  to  be  truly  held,  given,  received,  and  eaten  in 
the  bread,"  ^'^  and  this  not  only  by  believers,  but  by 
all  who  partake,  whether  worthily  or  not.  Luther  had 
little  hope  of  union,  and  even  preferred  to  differ  with 
people  who  denied  that  Judas  ate  the  sacrament  as 
well  as  the  good  apostles. ^^ 

But  Bucer  was  determined  to  concede  everything 
rather  than  give  excuse  for  a  continuation  of  the 
schism.  In  his  reply  to  Luther's  memorial,  he  ac- 
knowledged the  real  presence,  even  that  the  "body 
was  crushed  with  the  teeth  and  swallowed."  But  yet 
there  was,  he  said,  no  physical  union  of  body  and 
bread;  otherwise  the  holy  corpse  would  go  to  the  belly 
and  be  subject  to  the  movements  thereof.^''     Bucer's 

23  Glossae  D.  M.  Lutheri  super  sententias  patrum  de  controversia 
coenae  exhihitas  ipsi  a  D.  P.  Melanchthone.     Weimar,  xxxviii.  294  ff. 

2*  Weimar,  xxxviii.  298,  Enders,  x.  91  ff.  The  German  translation 
of  this  memoir  adds  that  the  body  of  Chrict  "is  bitten  by  the  teeth." 
This  is  not  in  the  Latin  original,  but  was  added  from  the  Confession 
of  1528,  where  Luther  used  the  expression. 

25  Forster  to  Schlaginhaufen,  Wittenberg,  Dec.  19,  1534,  A.  R.  G., 
vii.  73. 

26  Dec.   28   or   29,  Enders,  x.   105. 


BUCER  173 

language  in  this  document  and  in  his  negotiations  with 
Melanchthon,"'  is  a  striking  example  of  the  tendency 
of  theology  to  hair-splitting.  For  Bucer  exhausted  the 
vocabulary  at  his  command  to  show  that  in  the  bread 
Christ  was  really  present  and  really  not  present;  that 
he  was  eaten  by  the  mouth  but  not  voided  by  the  belly; 
that  the  bread  and  wine  were  signs  of  things  absent  and 
yet  that  they  were  the  very  things  signified. 

His  sophistry,  however,  achieved  the  end  he  de- 
sired, for  Luther  at  last  declared  himself  in  general 
satisfied,  though  inclined  to  wait  longer  for  a  definite 
agreement.^^  "I  have  now  arrived  at  the  point,"  he 
exclaimed  in  a  burst  of  generosity,  "where,  thank  God, 
I  can  confidently  hope  that  the  ministers  of  Upper  Ger- 
many heartily  and  earnestly  believe  what  they  say."  ^^ 

In  April  the  busy  Bucer  went  to  Augsburg  to  inform 
the  clergy  there  that  hitherto  he  had  not  sufficiently 
understood  the  matter  of  the  sacrament,  for  he  had 
taught  nothing  of  the  ofiice  of  the  body  and  blood.  It 
was  then  suggested  by  Neobulus  that  they  should  pro- 
cure a  preacher  from  Wittenberg  to  instruct  them.^*' 
They  accordingly  sent  two  of  their  number  with  a  letter 
to  Luther,  dated  June  20,  1535,  rehearsing  the  sad 
history  of  the  controversy  from  its  inception  by  Carl- 
stadt,  speaking  of  the  joy  it  had  given  the  pope,  and 
sending  a  confession  of  the  real  presence.  The  worthy 
clergymen  expressed  their  hopes  of  ending  the  schism 
and  requested  that  Urban  Rhegius  be  sent  to  instruct 
them  in  the  pure  doctrine  of  Wittenberg.^^ 

27BindseiI:  Colloquia,  ii.  47. 

28  Enders,  x.  124. 

29  Smith,  Luther,  292  f.  Jan.  30,  1535. 
^^  Baum,  502. 

31  Enders,  x.  159  flf. 


174  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Luther  declared  himself  willing  to  treat,  and,  by 
this  condescension,  delighted  Bucer.^^  After  further 
negotiation  ^^  the  Wittenberg  professor  instructed  the 
Strassburg  clergy  in  the  niceties  of  his  doctrine.  The 
body  and  blood,  said  he,  were  present  to  be  eaten  and 
drunk,  but  were  not  intended  to  be  reserved  or  carried 
in  processions.  Whether  the  body  was  present  in  re- 
served hosts  he  declined  to  decide,  saying  that  the 
papists,  who  were  given  to  the  practice,  must  answer 
for  It.'* 

Sensitive  as  Luther  was  to  the  slightest  shade  of 
difference  from  his  own  opinion,  the  utter  obsequious- 
ness of  the  South  German  clergy,  who  prostrated  their 
private  judgment  before  his  infallible  decisions,  finally 
convinced  him  that  it  would  be  safe  to  sign  an  agree- 
ment with  them.  A  conference  was  therefore  ar- 
ranged at  Wittenberg,  and  took  place  at  the  Black 
Cloister,  during  the  days  May  21-29,  1536.  The 
discussion  was  largely  on  the  question  of  whether  the 
unworthy  received  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  for  this 
was  considered  the  final  test  of  the  real  presence. 
Luther  maintained  that  as  the  body  was  truly  there,  it 
made  no  difference  who  ate  It;  Judas  might  partake  as 
well  as  Peter.  The  Zwinglian  doctrine  had  been  that, 
as  the  participation  was  an  act  of  faith,  only  believers 
might  enjoy  true  communion  with  their  Saviour. 
Bucer,  at  this  conference,  made  one  of  those  fine  dis- 
tinctions In  which  he  was  an  adept.  Those,  said  he, 
with  a  glance  at  the  Catholics,  who  perverted  the  in- 
stitution of  Christ,  did  not  partake  of  the  body  and 

32  Bucer   to   A.   Blaurer,   Nov.    13,   1525,  Blaurer,   i.   759. 

33  Enders,  x.  193,  237. 

34  Enders,  x.  272,  Nov.  27,  1535. 


BUCER  175 

blood,  but  those  in  a  lesser  degree  of  unworthiness 
might  receive  it.^^ 

Agreement  having  finally  been  reached,  a  document 
known  as  the  Wittenberg  Concord  was  drawn  up  by 
Melanchthon  and  signed,  on  May  29,  by  all  present 
save  one.  The  doctrine  of  the  eucharist  was  expressed 
as  follows:  "We  confess,  in  the  words  of  Irenaeus, 
that  the  eucharist  consists  of  two  things,  an  earthly  and 
a  heavenly.  Thus  we  think  and  teach  that  with  the 
bread  and  wine  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly 
and  substantially  present,  exhibited,  and  received." 
Transubstantiation  is  denied,  "nor  do  we  think  there 
is  a  local  inclusion  in  the  bread  or  a  durable  conjunc- 
tion outside  the  sacramental  use."  So  truly  is  the 
body  present,  however,  that  even  the  unworthy  are 
said  to  receive  it.^^ 

Satisfied  with  the  new  confession,  Luther  made  sure, 
by  personal  inquiries,  that  the  councils  of  Augsburg 
and  Strassburg  really  accepted  it."  They  assured  him 
that  they  did  so,  but  yet  dared  not  inform  the  people 
how  far  they  had  gone  in  the  conservative  direction. 
Thus  on  July  6,  1536,  Bucer  wrote  A.  Blaurer  that  the 
Concord  was  meant  only  to  be  signed  by  magistrates 
and  not  scattered  around  among  the  people. ^^ 

While  Protestant  Germany  was  now  united,  Switz- 
erland, with  the  exception  of  a  few  men,'^  held  aloof. 
Bucer  did  his  best,  though  in  vain,  to  reunite  them  also 
with  his  leader.  When  his  letter  proposing  that  Luther 

35Buceri  Opera  anglicana,  p.  654,  quoted  Enders,  66,  note  12.  Cf. 
Baum,   506   ff. 

36Kidd,  318. 

^'^  Enders,  x.  342,  xi.  i,  22. 

2^  Blaurer,  i.  806. 

39  Joachim  Vadian  wrote  Aphorismorum  libri  sex  de  consider- 
atione  eucharistiae,. isiS,  maintaining  the  Lutheran  doctrine. 


176  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

should  write  to  the  Swiss  about  his  agreement,  arrived, 
Luther  said  (August  25,  1536)  :  "I  know  not  what  to 
write.  The  Sacramentarians  only  seek  a  pretext  from 
my  letter,  not  wishing  to  confess  their  errors  and  only 
saying  that  neither  side  has  understood  the  other.  But 
I  will  not  allow  this  proposition,  for  it  would  make  me 
guilty  of  not  understanding  their  position.  Ah,  Lord 
God,  I  have  understood  it  only  too  clearly,  otherwise 
why  should  I  have  written  against  it  so  hard? 
I  will  not  load  myself  with  others'  sins.  .  .  There 
can  be  no  true  concord  because  the  sacramentarians 
measure  the  matter  by  reason."  *° 

On  December  26,  1536,  he  wrote  indignantly  to  the 
burgomaster  and  town  council  of  Isny,  denying  that 
he  had  come  to  Zwingli's  dogma  of  the  sacrament.  If 
people  say  that,  he  avers,  the  Concord  will  turn  into  a 
discord.  Let  them  boast  what  they  like,  higher  knowl- 
edge, more  of  the  Spirit  or  of  holiness  than  either 
Luther  or  Paul  possess,  only  let  them  not  boast,  the 
writer  warns  them,  that  he  has  yielded  to  them.  For 
his  own  part,  his  only  doubts  are  whether  some  who 
signed  the  Concord  really  believe  it.*^ 

The  Swiss  held  a  conference  at  Basle  in  January, 
1537'  to  discuss  the  Wittenberg  Concord.  On  Janu- 
ary 12  they  wrote  Luther  that  they  considered  the 
sacrament  a  visible  picture,  a  certain  proclamation  and 
a  holy  sign  of  God's  grace  and  promises,  and  not  mere- 
ly a  sign,  for  the  body  of  Christ  is  truly  eaten,  though 
not  substantially  nor  in  fleshly  wise.*^  About  the  same 
time  Capito  and  Bucer  wrote  Luther  that  the  sacra- 
ment was  not  salutary  apart  from  faith  and  that  the 

40  Bindseil,  Colloquia,  ii.  45. 

■*^  Enders,  xi.  149,  Erlangen,  Iv.  194. 

^2  Enders,  xi.  157  ff. 


BUCER  177 

body  of  Christ  could  not  be  received  in  men's  bellies.*^ 
This  opinion  did  not  arouse  the  opposition  that  might 
have  been  expected,  for  the  Reformer  wrote  his  fellow 
workers  of  Strassburg  that  he  believed  they,  personal- 
ly, were  sincere,  but  that  they  labored  in  vain  with 
others  for  "the  Satan  of  Augsburg"  was  against  them.** 

A  few  months  later  his  judgment  of  the  Swiss  be- 
came more  favorable  again,  and,  though  he  told  Bucer 
he  liked  their  Basle  Confession  less  than  the  Tetrapoli- 
tana,*^  he  wrote  them,  December  2,  1537,  that  he  was 
pleased  to  find  they  agreed  with  the  Concord.*^ 

In  1538,  not  unfriendly  letters  were  exchanged  be- 
tween Zwingli's  successor,  BuUinger,  and  Luther,*^  but 
in  the  following  year  the  old  hatred  flamed  up  again. 
In  his  work  On  Councils  and  Churches,  Luther  accused 
Zwingli  of  Nestorianism,  because  he  failed  to  recog- 
nize the  doctrine  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum,  and 
thus,  according  to  Luther,  made  two  natures  of 
Christ.*^  The  Zurich  clergymen  wrote  at  once  denying 
this  charge  against  their  late  master,  but  the  Witten- 
berger  never  answered  them.*^ 

After  this  Luther's  relations  with  the  sacramentar- 
ians  became  steadily  worse.  In  1541  he  heard  that 
the  Bohemian  Brethren  denied  the  real  presence  and 
he  threatened  to  write  publicly  against  their  lies  and 
hypocrisy,  but  did  not  find  time  to  do  so.^° 

At  the  Conference  of  Hagenau  in  the  same  year  the 

*3  Enders,  xi.  182  f. 
•**  Enders,  xi.  247. 
^^  Enders,  xi.  300. 

*6  Enders,  xi.  294,  Erlangen,  Iv.  190.     Dated  here  Dec.  i.     But  the 
MS  (original?)  at  Corpus  Christi  College,  no.  119.  45,  is  dated  Dec.  2. 
*^  Enders,  xi,  363. 
*^  Weimar,  vol.  50,  p.  591. 

49  Enders,  xii.  241. 

50  Kostlin-Kawerau,  ii.  577. 


178  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Catholic  Legate  Morone  counted  on  a  controversy 
between  Melanchthon  and  Bucer  on  the  supper  to  turn 
things  to  his  own  advantage. ^^ 

Two  years  later  a  petty  but  fierce  quarrel  arose  in 
the  bosom  of  the  Saxon  Church  on  the  question  of  what 
to  do  with  the  bread  and  wine  left  over  after  commun- 
ion. On  June  30  Simon  Wolferinus,  pastor  of  Eis- 
leben,  drew  up  ten  theses  stating  that  the  sacraments 
were  divine  actions  and  that  outside  of  the  act  of  par- 
ticipating "it  was  madness,  rabid  fury  and  monstrous 
ignorance"  to  think  that  the  bread  and  wine  were  still 
sacramental.  This  aroused  the  wrath  of  the  Witten- 
bergers.  Jonas  blamed  the  rash  asserter  of  private 
judgment  for  not  referring  the  question  to  Witten- 
berg before  he  had  dared  to  pronounce  on  it.  "You 
know,"  said  he,  "that  I  am  a  disciple  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Martin  Luther.  I,  who  for  twenty-two  years  have 
conversed  familiarly  with  Luther  and  Melanchthon, 
am  still  wont  to  refer  things  great  and  small,  especi- 
ally difficult  matters,  to  Wittenberg."  ^^ 

Luther  himself,  in  great  embarassment  to  answer 
the  question,  retorted  that  Wolferinus  was  a  "Zwing- 
lian"  and  "despiser  of  the  sacrament."  Melanch- 
thon, said  he,  had  truly  written  that  God  was  not 
present  in  the  bread  except  during  the  sacramental  use, 
but  the  question  of  putting  the  exact  time  limit  on  this 
real  presence  was  difficult.  All  he  could  say  was  that 
it  was  an  unprofitable  question  to  discuss,  and  that  a 
decent  time  must  be  assumed  to  elapse  after  commun- 
ion before,  as  it  were,  the  body  of  Christ  faded  away. 

5iPastor-Kerr,  xi.  418. 

^^Kawerau,  in  Z.  K.  G.,  xxxiii,  1912,  268  ff. 


BUCER  179 

He  therefore  advised  eating  the  remaining  elements^  j 
to  avoid  scandal. ^^  ^ 

This,  however,  was  a  mere  episode  compared  with 
the  continued  battle  with  the  Swiss,  In  June,  1543, 
Luther  wrote  to  the  Italian  Protestants,  "The  Zurich- 
ers  especially,  and  their  neighbors,  are  enemies  of  the 
sacrament  and  use  profane  bread  and  wine,  from 
which  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  excluded;  they 
are  learned  in  all  tongues  but  of  a  spirit  alien  to  us; 
drunken,  whose  contagion  is  to  be  shunned."  ^* 

On  the  other  hand  Bullinger  of  Zurich  was  unwil- 
ling to  approach  Luther  when  Frecht  proposed  it  to 
him.  He  knew,  he  said,  that  Luther  would  never 
keep  the  terms  of  any  treaty.  "He  has  never  ceased, 
publicly  and  privately,  to  condemn  Zwingli  and  us. 
We  wrote  him  privately,  as  agreed,  but  he  answered 
nothing,  despising  and  rending  us  .  .  .  We  know 
that  we  cannot  come  into  Luther's  good  graces  and 
concord,  unless  we  deny  Zwingli's  doctrine  and  ours 
about  the  Lord's  supper,  images,  confession,  and  abso- 
lution. I  would  rather  die  than  to  obscure  or  deny 
the  true  and  simple  verity."  ^^ 

The  diffierences  might,  however,  have  been  allowed 
to  remain  unexpressed,  had  not  the  conciliatory  efforts 
of  Bucer  and  Melanchthon  fanned  the  flames  of  old 
animosities  to  white  heat.  Those  gentlemen,  in  the 
summer  of  1544,  drew  up  a  Plan  of  Reform  for  the 
recently  converted  city  of  Cologne,  in  which  document, 
to  avoid  altercation,  they  minimized  the  differences 
of  the  several  bodies  of  Protestants  on  the  doctrine  of 

53  Enders,  xv.  173   ff,   182. 

s*  Enders,  xv.  167. 

^^  Vadianische  Briefsammlung,  vi.   321,  May,  1544. 


i8o  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

the  eucharist.  As  soon  as  he  saw  it  Luther  expressed 
himself  as  follows:  "The  Plan  of  Reform  does  not 
please  me.  It  speaks  at  length  about  the  use,  fruit 
and  honor  of  the  sacrament,  but  mumbles  about  the 
substance,  so  that  one  cannot  gather  what  it  professes. 
In  short,  I  am  sick  and  disgusted  with  the 
book  .  .  .  which,  besides  other  objections,  is 
much,  much  too  long,  a  great  tedious  yarn,  in  which  I 
can  see  the  hand  of  that  chatterbox,  Bucer."  ^^  He 
even  planned  a  book  against  Melanchthon  and  Bucer. 
"God  forgive  Luther  and  the  Zurichers,"  wrote  Bucer, 
"for  letting  so  dangerous  a  fire  burn  so  fiercely."" 

His  refutation  of  the  Plan  of  Reform,  entitled  A 
Short  Confessioti  oti  the  Holy  Sacrament,  was  pub- 
lished in  September.^^  It  is  one  of  those  ungovernable 
outbursts  of  passionate  anger  characteristic  of  the  Re- 
former's declining  years.  He  felt  the  inner  need  of 
giving  this  last  terrible  expression  to  his  hatred  of  his 
fellow-Christians  in  order  to  rid  himself  of  the  shadow 
of  the  Wittenberg  Concord.  The  ranters,  said  he, 
make  a  great  palaver  about  spiritual  eating  and  drink- 
ing, but  really  they  are  murderers  of  souls.  "As  I  am 
about  to  descend  into  the  grave,"  he  averred,  "I  will 
take  this  testimony  and  boast  before  the  judgment  seat 
of  my  Lord,  that  I  have  always  damned  and  shunned 
the  ranters  and  enemies  of  the  sacrament,  Carlstadt, 
Zwingli,  Oecolampadius,  Stenckfeld  [Schwenckfeld], 
and  their  disciples."  They  have,  he  adds,  a  bedeviled 
heart  and  a  lying  mouth. 

No  wonder  that  this  was  too  much  even  for  Luther's 


56  Smith,  Luther,  p.  403.     Enders,  xvi,   59. 

5^  Anrich,  95  f. 

ss  Erlangen,  xxxii.  396  ff. 


BUCER  i8i 

best  friends.  Melanchthon  threatened  to  leave  Wit- 
tenberg,^^ and  said:  "Should  I  shed  as  many  tears  as 
there  are  waters  in  the  Danube,  my  sorrow  would  not 
be  exhausted;  should  I  make  enough  erasures  to  cover 
the  most  fertile  field  in  Europe,  I  could  not  heal  the 
wound,  which  had  already  been  cicatrized,  but  which 
Luther  opened  again  with  this  his  bitter  book."  ®° 

In  spite  of  this  Confession  there  is  a  legend,  per- 
sisting even  in  Principal  Lindsay's  recent  work,  that 
Luther  at  the  time  of  his  death  was  on  the  road  to 
union  with  the  Swiss  Protestants.  The  ground  for 
this  legend  is  the  fact  that,  during*  his  last  days,  he 
told  Melanchthon  that,  in  the  new  edition  of  his  work 
"That  these  words.  This  is  my  Body,  still  stand  fast," 
he  wished  to  omit  the  passage  in  which  he  had  said  that 
the  devil,  through  Bucer,  had  smeared  Luther's  books 
with  dung.  This  may  have  implied  a  wish  to  spare 
Bucer,  but  not  the  others.  His  last  sermons  at  Wit- 
tenberg and  Eisleben  denounce  the  sacramentarians,®^ 
and  in  a  letter,  written  a  month  before  his  death,  he 
says:^^  "I  greatly  rejoice  at  what  you  tell  me  about 
the  Swiss  writing  against  me  so  vehemently,  condemn- 
ing me  as  an  unhappy  man  of  unhappy  genius.  This 
is  what  I  sought,  this  is  what  I  wished  my  book,  so 
offensive  to  them,  to  do,  namely  to  make  them  publicly 
testify  that  they  are  my  enemies;  now  I  have  attained 
this  and,  as  I  have  said,  rejoice  at  it.  The  blessing  of 
the  Psalm  is  sufficient  for  me,  the  most  unhappy  of  all 
men:    'Blessed   is   the   man  who   walketh   not   in   the 

59  A.  Blaurer  to  Vadian,  Sept.  24,  15+4,  Vadianische  Brief sammlung, 
vi.  348. 

eo/Z-ii.,  352. 

61  Grisar,   ii.   793    f.     Haussleiter:   Die    Geschiclitliclie   Grunde,  &c. 

*2  Smith,  Luther,  405;   Enders,  xiii,  11. 


1 82  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

counsel  of  the  sacramentarlans,  nor  standeth  in  the  way 
,:  of  the  Zwinglians,  nor  sitteth  in  the  seat  of  the  men  of 
'  Zurich.'  "  '' 

And  Bucer,  after  all  his  gyrations,  remained  of  his 
first  opinion  still.  "What  kind  of  a  real  presence," 
he  wrote  Blaurer,  "can  the  Lutherans  imagine,  when 
they  neither  give  it  a  place,  nor  include  Christ  in  the 
bread  nor  transmute  the  bread  into  Christ?"  Twenty 
years  of  argument  and  concession  had  not  solved  that 
for  him,  but  had  only  won  him  the  dislike  of  the  Zurich 
pastors,  who  now,  as  he  says  in  the  same  letter,  are 
unbecomingly  attacking  him  with  libels  and  lies.^* 


63  Cf.  Psalm  i,  i. 

6*  Feb.  25,  154s,  Blaurer,  ii.  349. 


X.     MELANCHTHON 

'The  ore  dug  by  the  miner's  son  was  forged  by  the 
son  of  the  smith  into  useful  articles  of  shining  metal.' 
Such  is  the  tropical  way  of  saying  that  Melanchthon 
took  Luther's  ideas  and  put  them  into  more  consistent 
form.  Until  1531  his  theory  followed  the  same  evo- 
lution as  Luther's;  after  that  date  he  became,  timidly 
and  secretly,  more  inclined  to  the  Zwinglian  view. 

In  his  Loci  Communes,  published  early  in  1521,^  he 
emphasizes  the  early  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  impor- 
tance of  faith.  Neither  baptism  nor  participation  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  are  anything,  he  says,  in  themselves, 
but  are  merely  witnesses  and  seals  of  the  divine  will 
and  benevolence.  The  error  of  holding  the  mass  a 
sacrifice  and  a  good  work  is  attributed  to  Aquinas  and 
is  refuted.    The  real  presence  is  assumed. 

While  Luther  was  absent  at  the  Wartburg,  Mel- 
anchthon entered  with  spirit  into  the  reforms  of 
Zwilling  and  Carlstadt,  being  the  first  layman  to  take 
communion  in  both  kinds.  When  he  did  not  have 
Luther  to  lean  upon,  he  took  the  fanatic  Stiibner, 
"clung  to  his  side,  listened  to  him,  wondered  at  him  and 
venerated  him."  ^  At  this  time,  January  or  early  in 
February,  1522,  he  drew  up  a  memorial  on  the  Supper.^ 

^  On  the  date,  Supplementa  M elanchthoniana,  i,  p.  xvi.  The  Loci 
in  Spalatin's  translation  printed  here  pp.  i86  ff;  extracts  from  it  in 
Kidd,  92  f. 

2  Ulscenius  to  Capito,  Jan.  i,  1522,  A.  R.  G.,  vi.  390;  Luther's 
Correspondence,  ii.  83. 

3  A.  R.  G.J  vi.  438. 


1 84  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

As,  says  he,  the  New  Testament  is  nothing  save  right- 
eousness of  spirit,  all  that  is  repugnant  to  that  right- 
eousness must  be  abolished.  Other  things  are  free. 
The  opinion  that  the  mass  is  a  sacrifice  is  repugnant 
to  that  righteousness,  but  ceremonies  are  not  repugnant 
to  it  and  may  therefore  be  tolerated.  It  is  a  law  to 
commune  under  both  kinds,  but  a  law  that  can  be  dis- 
pensed with  in  case  of  necessity  or  of  scandal. 

After  Luther's  return,  Melanchthon  at  once  ac- 
quiesced in  the  repudiation  of  all  the  reforms  he  had 
helped  to  introduce.  Like  Luther,  he  saw  in  the 
Peasants'  Revolt  a  divine  punishment  of  land  and 
people  for  the  abuse  of  the  mass,  "as  St.  Paul  says 
that  many  of  the  Corinthians  were  punished  for  the 
abuse  of  the  mass."  *     (I  Cor.  xi.  30). 

When  Carlstadt  started  the  controversy  over  the 
real  presence  Melanchthon  wrote  that  he  would  be 
neither  the  author  of  nor  an  actor  in  that  play.  He 
thought  that  no  one  would  start  such  questions  save 
those  who  had  nothing  to  do  at  home  with  weightier 
matters  of  the  law.  As  he  believed  that  all  the  an- 
cients taught  that  Christ  is  truly  present  he  would  not 
innovate  in  such  a  matter  without  a  certain  revelation.^ 
But  he  soon  found  himself  much  perplexed  and  had 
to  turn  continually  to  Luther  for  assurance."  To 
Blaurer  he  wrote  that  he  was  more  tortured  over  the 
question  than  he  had  ever  been  over  anything.  He 
does  not  see  how  the  Zwinglian  faction  can  persuade 
others,  as  it  has  not  even  persuaded  itself.  He  thinks 
it  perilous  to   conscience  to  prepound  new  dogmas. '^ 

*  Corpus  Ref.,  xx.  641   ff. 

^Melanchthon  to  T.  Blaurer,  Jan.  23,  1525,  Blaurer,  i.  118  f. 

^Corpus  Ref.,  i.  913;  iv.  964. 

^  June  20,  1529,  Blaurer,  i.  191. 


MELANCHTHON  185 

To  another  friend  he  said,  "Not  without  the  greatest 
struggle  have  I  come  to  hold  that  the  Lord's  body 
is  truly  present  in  the  Supper."  ^  Later  he  said  that 
not  a  day  or  a  night  had  passed  for  many  years  in 
which  he  had  not  thought  on  the  subject.^  But  as 
Luther's  doctrine  was  the  old  one,  a  good  man  would 
not  rashly  depart  from  the  ancients.^" 

His  hostility  to  Zwingli  at  Marburg  and  at  Augs- 
burg, surpassing,  if  possible,  that  of  Luther,  has  al- 
ready been  narrated.  In  April,  1529,  he  wrote 
Oecolampadius,  "I  am  not  willing  to  be  the  author  of 
a  new  dogma  in  the  church."  "  He  preferred  to  treat 
the  mode  of  the  presence  as  a  mystery  "without  sub- 
tlety," and  again  averred  that  he  would  rather  die  than 
affirm  with  the  Swiss  that  Christ's  body  could  be  pres- 
ent only  in  one  place. ^^ 

At  the  same  moment,  however,  when  he  was  calling 
God  to  witness  that  he  would  rather  unite  with  the 
Catholics  than  with  the  Zwinglians,^^  his  opinion  on 
the  point  in  controversy  with  them  was  shaken  by 
Oecolampadius's  Dialogue  on  what  the  Ancients 
thought  of  the  Supper.  From  this  time  on,  slowly 
and  secretly,  but  unmistakably,  he  began  to  forsake  the 
doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body  and  the  dogma 
that  unbelievers  participate  In  It  when  they  receive  the 
bread  and  wine,  and,  finally,  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence  in  any  form.  The  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion in  its  lost,  original  form,  was  very  nearly  Catholic. 

^  Corpus  Ref.,  i.  1106. 

9  Ibid.,  iii.   537. 

^^Ibid.,  i.    823,    830. 

^^  Corpus  Ref.,  i.  1048. 

^2  Ibid.,  ii.  25  ;  Schirrmacher,  349. 

^^  Schirrmacher,  247. 


1 86  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

In  the  form  published  in  1531,  it  stated  that  Christ's 
body  and  blood  were  truly  present  and  anathematized 
those  who  taught  otherwise.  In  the  edition  of  1540 
the  former  clause  was  changed  to  saying  that  the  body 
and  blood  were  really  given  to  the  communicant  with 
the  bread  and  wine  and  the  anathema  was  struck  out/* 

The  last  years  of  Melanchthon's  life  were  disastrous 
both  to  his  own  peace  of  mind  and  to  the  unity  of  the 
Lutheran  church.  The  Augsburg  Interim  of  May  15, 
1548,  decreed  that  the  canon  of.  the  mass  should  be 
retained  in  its  natural  meaning,  and  that  all  its  cere- 
monies should  be  retained.^^ 

Notwithstanding  this  external  pressure  the  Protes- 
tants were  unable  to  keep  the  peace  among  themselves. 
Lutheran  attacked  Calvanist,  and  "Gnesio-Lutheran" 
"Phillppist."  In  1552  Joachim  Westphal  of  Hamburg 
took  up  the  cudgels  for  the  old,  simon-pure  dogma  of 
the  real  presence  against  Calvin,  Peter  Martyr,  and 
Melanchthon.  Christ,  said  he,  was  eaten  "corpor- 
aliter,  dentaliter,  gutturallter  et  stomachallter."  He 
asked  what  would  happen  to  a  mouse  if  it  ate  the 
Lord's  body,  and  directed  that  the  crumbs  dropped 
should  be  picked  up  with  care.  To  such  lengths  was 
the  superstition  carried  that  the  fingers  of  a  minister 
who  had  accidentally  spilled  the  consecrated  wine  were 
cut  off  by  order  of  the  Lutheran  prince.^®  Melanch- 
thon was  against  such  "remnants  of  the  papacy"  which 
he  named  "artolatry"  or  "bread-worship."  But, 
though  urged  on  by  Calvin,  he  declined  to  express  his 
true  opinion  on  the  real  presence.  It  was,  however, 
a  few  years  later,  correctly  reported  to  the  Council 

14  iJ.  G.  G.,  i.  76. 

isKidd,  359  f. 

16  Richard,  Melanchthon,  363  f,  391;  R.  G.  G.,  i.  77. 


MELANCHTHON  187 

of  Trent  by  the  Emperor's  nuncio,  Delfino,  who  wrote 
that  Melanchthon  subscribed  to  the  opinion  of  Calvin 
on  the  eucharist,  and  that  his  followers  regarded  the 
matter  as  an  adiaphoron,  or  thing  indifferent/'^  The 
Emperor  wished  to  support  the  Augsburg  Confession 
on  this  point  against  the  sacramentarians.  But  in  the 
meantime  Calvin's  threat  to  write  on  this  subject 
against  Melanchthon/^  was  postponed  by  the  colloquy 
held  at  Worms  in  1557.  The  theologians  here  tried 
to  compromise  in  a  manner  that  suited  nobody.  With 
Melanchthon's  consent  they  condemned  the  Zwingli- 
ans,^®  while  at  the  same  time  altering  the  Augsburg 
Confession  again  to  make  it  possible  for  Calvinists  to 
sign  it.^"  Notwithstanding  his  own  vacillation  in  this 
matter  Melanchthon  became  more  and  more  intolerant 
of  divergencies  in  others'  belief.  In  1557  he  reckoned 
the  opinion  that  the  bread  and  wine  were  mere  signs 
as  blasphemy  which  ought  to  be  punished  by  death. ^^ 
Those  who  departed  from  the  straight  and  narrow 
path  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy,  not  daring  to  avow  their 
opinions,  because  known  as  "Cryptocalvinists."  In 
1558  Jonas  estimated  that  hardly  one  out  of  a  thous- 
and preachers  understood  the  dogma  rightly.^^  Among 
the  Cryptocalvinists  Melanchthon's  son-in-law  was  im- 
prisoned for  heresy  by  the  Lutherans. ^^  Melanch- 
thon's  own  life   was  made   miserable   and  his   death 

1^  Aug.  10,  1562.  Calendar  of  State  Papers  at  Rome,  1916,  no. 
184. 

^^  Corpus  Reformatorum,  xlii.  342,  Dec.  21,  1556. 

19  Doumergue,  11.  558.  Further  on  Melanchthon  and  Calvin, 
Kawerau,  Agricola,  1881,  p.  348. 

20Janssen,i6  jv.  25. 

21  N.  Paulus,  Luther  und  die  Geivissensfreiheit,  p.  47  ff,  quoting 
a  work  of  Melanchthon  not  in  the  Corpus  Reformatorum. 

22  Janssen,!^  iv.  25. 

23  p.  V^''appler:  Stellung  des  Kursachsens,  p.  121. 


1 88  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

perhaps  hastened  by  chagrin  at  the  ferocious  attacks 
made  upon  him. 

As  nothing  had  been  settled  at  Worms,  further  con- 
ferences, equally  inconclusive,  followed.  In  1564  the 
Brandenburg  theologians  held  a  debate  at  Maul- 
bron.^*  A  strong  Lutheran  doctrine  prevailed  but  the 
question  of  the  mode  of  the  real  presence  agitated 
the  learned  assembly.  The  doctrine  of  ubiquity  was 
slurred  over  in  the  Interests  of  peace,  only  to  make 
way  for  a  lively  altercation  on  the  communicatio  idio- 
matum.  Karg  argued  against  it  by  saying:  "If  an  ass 
were  entirely  and  absolutely  like  a  man  he  would  be  a 
man  and  no  ass  and  would  not  have  any  of  the  ass's 
nature  left."  His  auditors  do  not  seem  to  have  re- 
sented this  simile  as  a  personal  reflection  upon  them- 
selves, but  went  on  to  thresh  out  the  old  and  interesting 
problem  as  to  what  happened  to  the  Saviour's  body 
after  it  had  passed  into  the  eater's  belly.  They  decid- 
ed that  the  bodily  part  went  into  the  "kitchen"  of  the 
human  digestion,  but  that  "what  was  spiritually  eaten 
by  the  mouth  went  by  faith  into  the  soul's  kitchen, 
where  there  was  a  very  different  rule  from  that  pre- 
vailing in  the  mortal  body's  belly  and  guts."  The  Cal- 
vinists,  nevertheless,  revived  the  epithet  "Stercoron- 
Istae"  to  apply  to  Lutherans. 

The  final  collapse  of  Melanchthon's,  as  opposed 
to  Luther's  Ideas,  came  with  the  signing  by  8,200 
clergy,  in  1577-80,  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  In 
this  all  the  least  rational  and  least  spiritual  fancies  of 
Luther  were  fixed.^^  And  yet  a  desperate  effort  was 
made  to  reconcile  opposltes.  The  body  and  blood 
are  said  to  be  substantially  present,   and   "are  eaten 

24  E.  Schornbaum  in  Z.  K.  G.,  xxxiv.  378  ff,  491  ff. 


MELANCHTHON  189 

not  only  spiritually  but  by  the  mouth,  nevertheless  not 
Capernaitically,  but  after  a  spiritual  and  heavenly 
manner."  ^^  The  manducatio  infidelium,  the  ubiquity 
theory  and  the  communicatio  idiomatiim  those  "christ- 
ological  monstrosities"  as  Loofs  calls  them,  are  re- 
tained. The  "high"  doctrine  is  reasserted  in  the  Saxon 
Visitation  articles  of  1592."  The  Philippists  found 
no  more  place  in  the  Lutheran  church,  but  became  Cal- 
vinists.^® 


25/?.  G.  G.,  V,  915. 

26Schaff:  Creeds,  iii.  137. 

^Ubid.,  186. 

28  Moller-Kawerau,  iii.  292;  jR.  G.  G.,  i.  77. 


XI.     CALVIN 

Calvin  is  the  Aquinas  of  Protestantism;  the  philos- 
opher and  apologist  of  a  certain  system.  He  lived 
before  the  age  when  it  could  have  dawned  on  him  how 
very  human  and  ephemeral  that  system  was.  Like 
many  other  philosophers  he  saw  in  the  mere  conven- 
tions of  his  age,  in  the  ideas  most  dependent  upon  the 
exact  conditions  at  which  civilization  had  arrived, 
eternal  truth.  Like  Aquinas  and  most  religious  think- 
ers, he  had  a  bias  for  authority  stronger  than  any 
other  principle.  For  I  doubt  if  there  is  in  his  vol- 
uminous writings  one  original  idea.  And  I  do  not 
mean  original  in  any  very  rigid  sense,  for,  to  the 
searcher  for  "sources"  it  seems  almost  literally  true 
that  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun,  but  I  mean 
that  one  cannot  find  in  him  any  idea  unsupported  by 
ample  authority.^ 

As  in  all  other  matters,  so  in  this  of  the  Supper,  it 
was  authority,  not  reason,  from  which  he  started. 
Empiricism  would  have  been  repugnant  to  him;  inno- 
vation blasphemous.  He  must  get  at  the  meaning  of 
the  Bible  as  interpreted  by  the  Fathers  and  as  both 
Bible  and  Fathers  were  interpreted  by  the  Reformers. 

For  a  long  time  it  was  customary  to  say  that  his 

^  doctrine  was  near  that  of  Zwingli.    Of  late  it  has  been 

thought  nearer  to  that  of  Luther's.     It  is  ordinarily 

1  On  Calvin  in  general:  Smith:  The  Age  of  Reformation,  i6o  flf; 
on  his  doctrine  of  the  eucharist,  pp.   165   f. 


CALVIN  191 

said  that  it  is  between  the  two.     This  last  assertion, 
common  as  it  is,  reminds  me  of  a  story  of  a  college 
president   who,   when   asked  if   he   believed   in   God, 
replied,  "In  that  matter,  as  in  others,  truth  lies  between 
the  two  extreme  opinions."     In  an  alternative  of  that 
nature   there   is  no  middle   point.      One   must   either 
affirm  with  Luther  that  Christ's  body  is  present  in  the  "^ 
bread,  or  deny  it,  with  Zwingli.     The  fact  that  Calvin 
himself  claimed  to  take  this  intermediate  position  does 
not  alter  matters.     In  this,  as  in  his  whole  doctrine, 
he  was  the  heir  of  Bucer.     He  could  and  did  reject 
this  and  that  corollary  or  argument  of  Wittenberg  or 
of  Zurich;  he  could  and  did  adopt  the  language  now 
of  one  now  of  the  other,  but  on  the  main  point  at  issue, 
all  that  he  could  dp  was  to  affirm  contradictions:  that  j^ 
the  body  was  present  in  a  sense  and  absent  in  a  sense;'' 
that  the  elements  both  represented  (the  absent)  body 
and  exhibited    (the   present)    body.      Like   Bucer   he 
hoped  that  by  making  distinctions  sufficiently  nice  and 
by  affirming  with  sufficient  ambiguity  each  of  the  mut- 
ually exclusive  alternatives,  he  could  really  reconcile 
the  two  factions  and  produce  a  doctrine  acceptable  to 
both.^     All  he  could  do,  as  a  distinguished  historian 
has  said,^  was  to  disguise  the  division  of  opinion,  and 
produce  a  nominal  unanimity  by  an  ambiguous  and  in- 
coherent jargon. 

For  he  felt  keenly  the  desirability  of  harmony 

between  the  two  Protestant  churches.     He  called  the 

strife  over  the  supper  shameful  and  calculated  to  bring 

it  into  contempt.*     He  recounted  the  history  of  the 

2 /J.  G.  G.,  i.  75. 

3  Henry  Hallam:  Literature  of  Europe  in  the  XV,  XVI  and  XVII 
Centuries  1863,  p.  354. 

4  Compendium  doctrinae  de  coena  Domini,  Corpus  Ref.  xxxvii.  681. 


192  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

altercation  until  his  day.^  Luther,  said  he,  left  the 
doctrine  of  the  corporeal  presence  as  he  found  it,  and, 
though  he  condemned  transubstantiation,  continued  to 
assert  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  in  a  sense  identical 
with  the  bread.  His  similes  to  explain  this  were,  Cal- 
vin thought,  a  little  hard  and  rough.  Then  came 
Zwingli  and  Oecolampadius  and,  moved  by  the  abuses 
the  devil  had  introduced  into  the  mass  and  by  the 
idolatry  of  the  host,  denied  too  much,  forgetting  to 
show  that  Christ  was  really  present,  and  making  the 
elements  bare  signs.  Of  the  two  opinions,  he  con- 
demned the  latter  the  more  severely,  as  wrong  and 
pernicious,  and  he  even  blamed  Bucer  for  sparing  it." 
Elsewhere  he  called  the  doctrine  profane  and  spoke 
of  Zwingli's  brave  death  at  Cappel  as  a  judgment  of 
God.^ 

His  starting  point,  then,  was  Luther.  In  this  he 
T  was  moved  partly  by  his  own  feeling,  akin  to  that  of 
the  Saxon,  of  the  need  of  some  strong  assurance  of 
salvation,  partly  by  his  respect  for  the  authority  of 
the  first  Reformer  and  partly  by  desire  to  win  his 
approval.  In  this  last  he  was  partially  successful. 
In  1539  Luther  read  the  younger  man's  Response  to 
Sadoletus  "with  singular  pleasure"  and  sent  him  his 
greeting.^  It  is  commonly  assumed  that  Luther  was 
pleased  by  what  Calvin  had  to  say  about  the  Supper, 
namely  that  the  bread  was  a  true  communication  of 
the  body  of  Christ  but  did  not  include  it  locally.  Mel- 
anchthon  also  said  that  his  master  liked  Calvin  and, 

^Petite  Traicte  de  la  Cene,  1541,  Kidd,  630  ff ;  CEuvres  choisies,  97. 
^  To  Zebedee,  May  19,  1539,  Gilchrist,  iv.  400  ff.     Herminjard,  v. 
318. 

7  R.  G.  G.,  V.  2257. 

8  Enders,  xii.  260. 


CALVIN  193 

when  some  persons  had  tried  to  excite  him  against  the 
Genevan  on  the  ground  of  his  denial  of  the   "local 
presence,"  had  replied:  "I  hope  that  sometime  he  will 
think  better  of  us,  but  it  is  right  that  we  should  bear 
something  from  this  able  spirit."  '    A  little  later,  how- 
ever, he  expressed  a  very  dubious  opinion  of  the  Swiss 
divine.     Speaking  of  Watt's  book  against  Schwenck- 
feld,  he  said:  "These  books  written  to  refute  others 
need   refutation  themselves.      Thus   Calvin   hides   his 
opinion  on  the  sacrament.     They  are  mad  and  cannot 
speak  out  though  the  truth  is  simple.      Don't  read 
their  books  to  me."  ^°     And  when  Calvin  wrote  him, 
m  January,  1545,  he  never  received  the  letter  because 
Melanchthon,   to  whom  it  was  first  sent,   refused  to 
give  it  to  his  friend,  fearing  that  it  would  make  trou- 
ble.^2 

Like  the  other  Reformers  Calvin  rejected  the  mass 
as  a  sacrifice"  and  as  a  good  work.  He  admitted  that 
the  ancient  fathers  called  it  a  sacrifice,  but  that  was 
only  un  fagon  de  parler. 

In  1536  he  expressed  his  doctrine  of  the  real  pres- 
ence as  follows:  "In  the  communion  of  his  body  and 
blood  Christ  witnesses  and  seals  the  fact  that  he  trans- 
fuses into  us  his  life  not  otherwise  than  if  he  penetrated 
mto  our  bones  and  marrow."  When  we  receive  the 
symbol  of  the  body  and  blood  we  must  be  sure  that 
the  body  and  blood  also  are  truly  given  to  us."  To 
support  his  theory  that  the  body  is  really  present  he 

^  Kostlin-Kawerau,  ii.  577. 

"  Smith,  Luther,  402.     Autumn,  1540. 

v^rf.^/ff"  ^'^-  ""'•  ^-     ^"   general,   Doumergue,  ii.   562   ff.     Enders 
XVI,   175   tt. 

12  So  Melanchthon  wrote  Calvin  April  17,  1545;  Corpus  Ref.,  xl,  61. 
'^'^  Corpus  Ref.,  xxxiii.  448.  ■'  '      > 

^^Instutio,  1536,  cap.  xvii,  Kidd,  p.  534. 


194  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

quotes  Tertullian's  refutation  of  Marclon's  heresy  that 
Christ  was  only  a  phantasm;  this  could  not  have  been 
so,  argued  Tertullian,  because  the  bread  which  is  the 
figure  of  his  body,  is  real." 

Calvin's  dogma  never  really  developed,  but  his  lan- 
guage bloomed.  When,  in  the  course  of  five  years, 
he  again  spoke  at  length  on  the  Supper,  it  was  to  ex- 
pand his  original  statements  in  a  vast  cloud  of  words 
in  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  detect  their  meaning 
and  therefore  their  self-contradictions.  In  a  different 
sense  from  that  meant  by  Talleyrand,  his  language 
was  made  to  conceal  thought.  Not  that  he  intended 
to  deceive  in  the  least,  but  he  was  obliged  to  cover  up 
and  deck  out  with  his  famous  style  the  inconsist- 
encies of  his  system.  So,  after  wading  through  ex- 
panses and  depths  of  words  in  the  Institute  of  1541^® 
or  in  the  Treatise  on  the  Supper"  of  the  same  year, 
all  that  we  arrive  at  are  such  equivocal  statements  as 
the  following:  "In  the  Supper  we  recognize  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  so  incorporated  in  us  and  we  in  him  that  all 
his  is  ours  and  all  ours  is  his."  The  body  of  Christ 
is  the  food  of  our  spiritual  life.  It  is  eaten  only  by 
faith  and  yet  it  is  a  desperate  folly  not  to  recognize  in 
the  bread  and  wine  a  communion  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  body  of  Christ  does  not 
descend  to  us,  but  the  Supper  Is  a  "canal  or  conduit" 
by  which  all  that  Is  Christ's  descends  to  us.  The  Word 
is  our  bread,  and  so  is  the  Supper.  In  a  letter 
to  VIret  he  says:  "In  the  Supper  is  not  only 
figured  but  actually  exhibited  that  communion  which 

15  Disputation  at  Lausanne,  October,  1536,  ibid.,  551. 

16  Ed.  Lefranc,  pp.  625  ff. 

17  CEwvres  choisies,  63  flF. 


CALVIN  195 

we  have  with  Christ,"  and,  "We  are  thus  united,  each 
individually,  with  Christ,  in  one  body  and  one  sub- 
stance." ^^  Through  all  this  maze  of  rhetoric  and 
contradiction  one  thing  at  least  is  clear,  that  Calvin 
is  still  putting  the  question  of  the  relation  of  the  heav- 
enly to  the  earthly  element  in  the  eucharist.  Nothing 
is  more  medieval  than  this/^  In  a  sense  it  is  even 
true,  as  Dr.  McGiffert  says,  that  Calvin  was,  in  this 
respect,  more  Catholic  than  Luther.^"  No  question  is 
really  answered  as  long  as  it  can  be  sincerely  asked. 
The  difference  between  Aquinas  and  Calvin  on  the  one 
side  and  rationalists  and  many  modern  Protestants,  on 
the  other,  is  not  that  they  give  different  answers  to  the 
question  of  the  real  presence,  but  that  to  the  latter  the 
question  itself  seems  absurd. 

Calvin,  though  unable,  as  was  inevitable  under  the  ^ 
circumstances,  to  advance  any  theory  of  the  mode  of 
union  of  the  heavenly  element  with  the  earthly,  was 
quite  able  to  criticize  all  previous  attempts  to  eluci- 
date this  problem.  Thus  he  rejected  with  justified  , 
surety  transubstantiation  and  Luther's  ubiquity  theory. 
No  property  can  be  assigned  to  Christ's  body,  he 
sagely  observes,  that  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of 
true  humanity.^^  To  be  truly  present,  says  he,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  Christ  should  be  included  in  the 
bread,  which  would  give  him  two  bodies. ^^  He  also 
avoided  many  of  the  absurdities  of  the  Lutherans  by 
confining  the  enjoyment  of  the  body  to  the  predestinate. 

18  Aug.  23,  1542,  Gilchrist,  i.  345  f. 
19/?.  G.  G.,  i.  75. 

20  Protestant  Thought  before  Kant,  93. 

21  Walker,  423.    R.  G.  G.,  i.  75. 

22  Ultima   Admonitio    ad    Westphalum,    1557,    Corpus    Ref.,  xxxvii. 
183. 


196  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

This  dispensed  with  the  necessity  of  asking  that  diffi- 
cult and  burning  question  as  to  what  would  happen  to 
a  mouse  who  ate  his  God.  In  all  this,  is  evident  not 
the  greater  consistency  and  rationality  of  Calvin's  the- 
ory, but  the  greater  cleverness  of  his  prestidigitation. 
The  body  is  needed  as  a  pledge  of  salvation.  Very 
well,  it  is  there;  if  you  are  elect,  eat  it.  But  suppose  a 
mouse  or  a  sinner  gobbles  up  the  body?  Impossible; 
it  is  not  there.  Presto,  it  is  gone,  only  to  return  in 
a  flash  the  moment  Calvin's  own  jaws  close  on  the 
wafer. 

On  the  effect  and  need  of  the  sacrament  Calvin 
was  much  clearer,  and  for  the  reason  that,  like  Luther, 
he  really  felt  the  imminence  of  judgment  and  the  long- 
ing to  be  saved.  "None,"  says  he,  "can  escape  from 
eternal  death.  If  we  are  not  asleep  or  stupid  this 
horrible  thought  must  be  a  perpetual  gehenna  to  vex 
and  torment  us."  ^^  But  we  are  freed  from  it  by 
God's  grace,  and  the  bread  is  the  vehicle  of  this 
grace.  If  he  asks  how,  he  again  falls  into  the  old 
perplexity.  The  benefit  is  not  wrought  by  the  sacra- 
ment itself,  but  infallibly  accompanies  it  when  received 
by  the  predestinate.^*  In  other  words:  I  never  play 
baseball  for  money;  I  merely  accept  a  present  from  the 
management  on  the  days  I  happen  to  play. 

Calvin's  path  had  been  broken  for  him  by  Farel, 
a  more  sensible  and  down-right  person.  "Why,"  wrote 
Farel  to  Bugenhagen  in  October,  1525,  "Why  should 
we  fight  for  a  bit  of  bread  which  the  Father  gave  us 
when  he  gave  us  his  Son?"  If  we  are  saved  by  faith 
only,  he  adds,  bread,  a  mere  external  thing,  is  not  nec- 

23  Tratcte  de  la  Sainte  Cene. 

24  Walker,  442. 


CALVIN  197 

essary  to  redemption.^^  At  the  Bern  Disputation  of 
1528  the  Fourth  Thesis^"  said,  "It  cannot  be  proved 
from  Scripture  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
substantially  and  corporeally  received  in  the  euchar- 
ist."  The  Fifth  Thesis  declares  that  the  mass  as  an 
offering  for  sins  of  the  dead  and  living  is  contrary  to 
Scripture,  blasphemous  and  an  abominable  abuse." 

It  was  Farel,  the  first  evangelist  of  French  Swit- 
zerland, who  secured  the  abolition  of  the  mass  at 
Aigle,  Ollon  and  Bex  in  1528.^^  In  1530  he  tore  the 
host  from  the  priest's  hands  at  Valangin,  and  said  to 
the  people,  "This  is  not  the  God  whom  you  must  wor- 
ship; he  is  above  in  heaven,  in  the  majesty  of  the 
Fath 


"   29 


Not  many  years  after  this  the  Reformation  began 
to  make  headway  in  France.  On  the  night  of  October 
17-18,  1534,  Antony  de  Marcourt  posted  throughout 
Paris  a  number  of  placards  attacking  the  mass.  He 
proclaimed  that  Christ's  sacrifice  could  not  be  repeated 
and  that  the  wretched  mass  had  plunged  the  world 
into  idolatry.  The  papists,  said  he,  were  not  afraid 
to  say  that  rats,  spiders  and  vermin  partook  of  the 
Lord's  body  if  they  ate  a  bit  of  the  bread,  as  is  writ- 
ten in  their  missals  in  the  twenty-second  rubric.  Though 
he  admitted  the  real  presence  he  denied  transubstanti- 
ation.'^" 

At  Geneva  mass  was  abolished  on  August  10,  1535, 
though  not  without  fears  that  the  people  would  mut- 

25V0gt,    50. 

2®  Lindsay,  ii.  52. 
27Kidd,  460. 
28Kidd,  482,  502. 

29Kidd,    483. 

soKidd,  529  ff,  Smith:  The  Age  of  the  Reformation,  197. 


198  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

iny.^^  On  December  24,  1536,  Bern  issued  an  edict 
for  the  reformation  of  the  Pays  de  Vaud,  alienating  the 
money  settled  on  foundations  for  masses  and  vigils. ^^ 

A  few  weeks  later  (January  13,  1537)  the  ministers 
of  Geneva,  including  Calvin,  presented  to  the  Town 
Council  a  memorandum  on  the  correct  doctrine  of  the 
Supper,  which  is  called  a  true  participation  in  the 
body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  his  death,  life, 
spirit,  and  all  his  goods.  The  ordinance  of  the  supper 
is  stated  to  be  the  breaking  of  bread  and  the  mass  to 
be  an  abomination.  Bread  and  wine  are  called  "figures 
and  sacraments  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord."^^ 

The  new  ecclesiastical  constitution  of  Geneva, 
1 541-2,  denounced  the  mass  and  provided  for  com- 
munion once  a  month.  Before  partaking  it  children 
must  make  a  profession  of  faith. ^*  Those  who  did  not 
renounce  the  mass  were  punished.^^  The  liturgy  of 
1542  said  that  men  saw  only  bread  and  wine  in  the 
elements,  but  that  through  them  God  fulfils  and  per- 
fects all  which  is  shown  forth  outwardly  in  these  vis- 
ible signs,  for  he  is  the  celestial  bread  which  nourishes 
to  eternal  life.^^  The  Geneva  catechism  of  1542  cer- 
tifies the  real  presence  and  declares  that  Christ  is 
eaten  internally  with  the  mind." 

Efforts  to  unite  the  whole  of  Protestant  Switzerland 
were  successful  in  the  Consensus  Tigurinus,  drafted 
by  Calvin  and  BuUinger  in  1549.  Chapter  22  of  this 
document  states  that  the  words  "This  is  my  body"  are 
to  be  taken  only  figuratively,  not  literally.     This  con- 

3iKIdd,  515. 
^^Ibid.,  537. 
^^Ibid.,  561  ff. 
34Kidd,  597. 
35Kidd,  632. 
36Kidd,  625  ff. 
s^Kidd,  611  ff. 


CALVIN  199 

cession  to  Zwinglianism  was  offset  by  emphasis  placed 
upon  the  gift  of  salvation  in  the  eucharist.  Besides 
Zurich  and  Geneva,  the  Consensus  was  accepted  by 
Basle,  Bern  and  a  number  of  other  cantons. ^^ 

All  approaches  of  the  Lutherans  were  rebuffed.  In 
June,  1550,  Calvin  was  so  exasperated  that  he  called 
the  Lutherans  "ministers  of  Satan"  and  "professed 
enemies  of  God,"  seeking  to  bring  in  adulterine' rights 
and  vitiate  the  pure  worship  of  God,^^  BuUinger  also 
wrote  Calvin  that  the  "Lutherans  were  an  obstinate 
and  pernicious  race  of  men,  without  judgment  or  hu- 
manity, persecuting  us  more  violently  than  the  papists 
themselves."  ^°  Blaurer  informed  Bullinger  that  the 
Saxons  said  they  would  rather  fight  with  the  Calvinists 
than  with  the  Turks. *^  In  the  matter  of  the  sacrament 
said  Schenck,  the  error  of  the  papists  is  rather  to  be 
borne  than  that  of  the  Saxons,*^  It  was  a  moot  question 
whether  a  Calvanist  could  receive  the  sacrament  at 
all  from  a  Lutheran.*^ 

The  battle  went  merrily  on  for  many  years  after 
Calvin's  death.  In  a  disputation  between  the  two  par- 
ties in  1596,  J.  Parsimonius  wrote  that  the  body  of 
Christ  was  present  in  all  places  and  in  all  creatures, 
not  only  in  the  elements  of  communion  but  in  every 
stock  and  stone,  "in  air,  fire  and  water,  in  apples, 
pears,  cheese  and  beer."  The  Calvinists  replied:  "The 
Lutheran  cyclopean  god-gobbling  (Herrgottsfresserei) 
is  from  the  devil  no  less  than  the  filth  of  papal  hosts 
and  all  devil's  dung."     The  Rostock  professor  J.  Af- 

ssKidd,  656;  Lindsay,  ii.  60;  R.  G.  G.,  i.  77. 

33  To  Paceus,  Corpus  Ref.,  xli.  591. 

^oin  1554,  Corpus  Ref.,  xliii.   138. 

^1  Blaurer,  iii.  369,  July  10,  1556. 

^^  Ibid.,  4CXJ,  August  30,  1557. 

*3  Blaurer  to  Calvin,  Corpus  Ref.,  xlvi.  539. 


200  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

felmann  wrote :  "Sturm  has  compared  the  words  of  the 
Supper  in  their  Hteral  meaning  to  a  snailshell  and  a 
snail's  dirt  and  slimy  dung  and  has  written  of  us  that 
we  do  not  eat  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  but  that 
we  crush  snailshells  with  our  teeth  and  swallow  snail's 
dung."  ** 

When  the  Calvinists  came  to  power  in  Hesse  in 
1600  they  abolished  the  wafers  used  in  communion  be- 
cause the  people  believed  them  the  body  of  Christ 
and  substituted  for  them  heavy,  hard  round  crackers, 
baked  from  the  coarsest  flour,  to  convince  the  people 
that  they  had  "bread,  bread,  and  nothing  but  bread." 
"The  cursed  wafers,"  said  they,  "are  a  birth  of  the 
Roman  Antichrist,"  and  one  of  them  derived  the  word 
host  from  the  Latin  os  porci,  pig's  mouth.*^ 

What  was  the  result  of  this  long,  long  battle  of 
words,  of  all  these  discussions  and  arguments,  of  all 
this  hatred  and  bigotry  centering  around  the  Lord's 
table?  The  answer  must  be  that  it  did  not,  directly, 
advance  the  cause  of  truth  one  whit.  Sturm  and  Laz- 
arus in  1600  were  no  nearer  squaring  the  circle  than 
were  Luther  and  Carlstadt  in  1524.  The  more  ration- 
al spirits,  Carlstadt,  Zwingli,  and  Oecolampadius,  had 
been  crushed  and  were  anathematized  by  Lutherans 
and  Calvanists  alike.  As  in  the  Roman  Church,  so  in 
the'  Protestant,  purely  internal  forces  consistently  made 
for  reaction,  ecclesiasticism,  intolerance,  and  supersti- 
tion. Protestantism  became,  as  Dr.  McGiffert  **^  has 
repeated  after  Harnack,  "as  blighting  to  intellectual 
growth  as  Roman  Catholicism  at  its  worst." 

**Janssen,i6  vi   516  ff. 

^^Ibid.,  s^Z  f,  546. 

^^  Martin  Luther,  1911,  p.   382. 


CALVIN  20 1 

The  internecine  wars  of  the  Protestants  weakened 
them  as  the  Thirty  Years  war  weakened  Germany. 
The  benefit  accrued  partly  to  Catholicism,  partly  to 
skepticism.  The  former  foe  was  the  only  one  they 
envisaged.  Thus  as  early  as  1530,  Queen  Margaret 
of  Navarre  wrote  to  the  Strassburg  clergy  that  the 
schism  caused  great  scandal  in  France.*^  Twelve  years 
later  the  Protestants  of  Italy  wrote  Luther:  "There  is 
a  second  thing  which  threatens  the  daily  destruction 
of  our  churches.  It  is  that  question  about  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  first  arose  in  Germany  and  was  thence 
carried  to  us.  Alas,  how  many  commotions  it  has  ex- 
cited !  How  many  dissentions  it  has  caused !  How 
much  offense  it  has  given  to  the  weak!  What  damage 
it  has  done  to  the  Church  of  God!  What  an  impedi- 
ment is  it  to  the  spreading  abroad  of  Christ's  glory."  ^'^ 


4^  Baum,  472.    Cf.  Bucer  to  Luther,  Aug.  25,  1530,  Enders,  viii.  209. 
48  Nov.  26,  1542,  Enders,  xv.  25  flf. 


XII.    THE  BRITISH  REFORMERS 

England,  though  she  has  to  her  credit  perhaps  even 
more  than  her  share  of  scientific  discoveries  and  in- 
ventions, has  usually  been  content  to  take  her  theology 
and  philosophy  from  the  European  continent.  At  no 
time  was  this  more  true  than  at  the  Reformation. 
Not  the  slightest  originality  was  shown  in  the  formula- 
tion of  any  dogma  or  reform.  In  the  article  of  the 
eucharlst,  the  Lutheran,  Zwinglian  and  Calvlnlstic 
views  were  all  represented  in  England;  and  their  evo- 
lution In  all  respects  paralleled  that  of  German  and 
Swiss  doctrines. 

Luther's  own  views  were  represented  with  great  ac- 
curacy by  the  Englishmen  who  visited  him  at  Witten- 
berg and  then  returned  to  their  own  country.  One 
of  these  was  Robert  Barnes,  who,  prior  to  1531, 
drew  up  a  series  of  Principle  Articles  of  the  Christian 
Faith.^  The  Seventeenth  Article,  on  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Altar,  reproduces  the  Lutheran  doctrine  exactly, 
supporting  it  by  quotation  from  the  Bible,  from  the 
Fathers  and  even  from  Erasmus.  The  author,  an 
Oxford  doctor  of  divinity,  shows  considerable  learn- 
ing, but  no  originality,  for  he  sticks  close  to  his  models, 
the  Articles  of  Schwabach  and  Marburg. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1535  Henry  VIII  sent  an  em- 

^Fiirnemlich  Artikel  der  ChristUchen  kirchen  .  .  .  Erstlich  in 
Lutein  durch  D.  Antonium  aus  Engllandt  zusammen  gebracht,  nenulich 
mit  einer  vorred  Joan.  Pomerani  verdeutscht,  1531.  On  Barnes  see 
P.  Smith:  "Englishmen  at  Wittenberg  in  the  i6th  Century,"  English 
Historical  Review,  July,  1921. 


THE  BRITISH  REFORMERS  203 

bassy  to  Wittenberg,  consisting  of  Edward  Fox,  Bishop 
of  Hereford,  and  Nicholas  Heath,  Archdeacon  of 
Stafford.  Their  instructions  were  to  treat  with  the 
Schmalkaldic  princes  about  political  union  and  with 
the  Wittenberg  theologians  about  its  then  indispensable 
basis,  confessional  agreement.^  Especially  they  were 
to  get  from  the  Reformers  a  favorable  opinion  of 
the  king's  divorce,  and  were  to  request  Melanchthon, 
to  whom  they  brought  a  large  present,  to  come  to 
England.^  In  both  these  particulars  they  were  unsuc- 
cessful; but  they  took  back  with  them  a  series  of 
Articles,  drawn  up  by  Melanchthon  from  previous  con- 
fessions.* Of  these  articles  the  sixth  declares  for  the 
real  presence,  the  eighth  defines  "sacrament"  as  a 
means  of  grace  by  which  God  works  invisibly  in  us; 
the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  are  on  the  order  of  "mass" 
and  on  giving  the  cup  to  the  laity. 

In  order  to  impress  the  English  visitors  with  the 
reformed  doctrine  of  private  masses,  a  special  debate 
on  the  subject  was  held  at  Wittenberg,  on  January  29, 
1536,  for  their  benefit.  At  It  Luther  answered  all 
their  questions,  to  their  complete  satisfaction.  He  con- 
ceded that  the  public  mass  might  be  called  a  sacrifice, 
but  objected  strenuously  to  the  private  mass.^ 

Returning  to  England  Fox  immediately  put  the 
Articles  in  good  use.     They  formed  the  basis  of  the 

2  On  this  embassy  in  general,  English  Historical  Revieiv,  1910, 
688  ff.     Merriman:  Life  and  Letters  of  T.  Crom-well,  i.  372. 

3  Merriman,  i.  419.  The  present  to  Melanchthon  of  5CX)  gulden, 
brought  by  Fox  and  Alesius,  mentioned  in  a  letter  from  A.  Musa 
to  Roth,  Dec.  II,  1535,  printed  in  G.  Buchwald:  Zur  JVittenberger 
Stadt  und  Universitdtsgeschichte,  1893,  p.   113. 

4G.  Mentz:  Die  IVittenberger  Artikel  z'on  1536.  Leipzig,  1905. 
The  judgment  on  the  divorce,  Corpus  Ref.,  ii.  527,  wrongly  placed  in 
1531- 

5  P.  Drews,  69  ff,  English  Historical  Reviein,  1921,  p.  425  f. 


204  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,  1537,  and  of  the  Book 
of  Articles  of  Faith  and  Ceremonies  handed  in  by  him 
to  Convocation  on  July  11.® 

When  the  Saxon  and  Hessian  ambassadors,  Boyne- 
burg  and  Myconius,  went  to  England  in  May,  1538, 
they  took  the  Wittenberg  Articles  with  them  and  held 
a  conference  on  them  with  three  English  bishops  and 
four  doctors,  the  result  of  which  was  a  confession  of 
Thirteen  Articles,  which  agree  often,  though  not  al- 
ways, with  their  source,  word  for  word.^  On  the  other 
hand  a  "minority  report"  as  it  would  be  called  today, 
was  drawn  up  by  Cuthbert  Tunstall,  and  handed  to 
Henry  VIII,  who  revised  it/ 

So  important  was  it  considered  at  this  moment  to 
have  Luther's  authority  that  a  set  of  spurious  articles 
attributed  to  him  were  circulated  in  England;  he  later 
issued  a  formal  repudiation  of  them.^ 

During  these  early  years  of  the  English  Reforma- 
tion the  Zwinglian  view  was  set  forth,  though  without 
calling  it  by  that  name,  by  William  Tyndale.  His 
Brief  Declaration  of  the  Sacraments, ^'^  of  1536,  ex- 
pressly affirms  that  the  "sacraments  are  bodies  of 
stories  only;  and  there  is  none  other  virtue  in  them 
than  to  testify  and  exhibit  to  the  senses  and  under- 
standing the  covenants  or  promises  made  in  Christ's 
blood."     Faith  in  the  only  method  by  which  they  can 

^Wilkins:  Concilia  Magnae  Brittanniae,  iii.  803;  Smith:  The  Age 
of  the  Reformation,  p.  301. 

^Reprinted  by  Jenkins:  Remains  of  T.  Cranmer,  quoted  by  Mentz. 

8  Henrici  VIII  .  .  .  contra  Germanorum  opiniones  de  utraque 
specie,  de  missa  privata  et  de  conjugio  sacerdoium.  MS  of  Corpus 
Christi  College,  Combridge,  England,  no.  109.  i.  The  same  printed 
from  another  MS  in  Burnet-Pocock:  The  Reformation,  iv.  373. 

^V^eimar,  xxxviii.  386. 

1°  Treatises,  publisher  by  Parker  Society,  345  ff.  A  Brief  declara- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  expressing  the  fyrst  originall  hoiv  they  came 
up     .     .     .     Compyled   by   the  godly   learned   man    JVyllyam    Tyndall. 


THE  BRITISH  REFORMERS  205 

be  utilized.  Of  the  three  opinions  held  concerning 
them,  the  first,  transubstantiation  and  the  second,  (Lu- 
theran) that  the  bread  is  not  changed  but  that  the 
"body  is  there  presently"  are  rejected.  The  truth  is 
said  to  be  that  the  words  "this  is  my  body  broken  for 
you"  oblige  us  to  believe  only  that  Christ's  body  was 
broken  for  us  and  not  that  the  bread  was  his  body. 

Both  Lutheran  and  Zwinglian  heresies  were  crushed 
by  the  Act  of  the  Six  Articles, ^^  in  1539,  which  made 
denial  of  transubstantiation  punishable  by  death,  and 
declared  for  communion  in  one  kind,  for  sacerdotal 
celibacy,  for  private  masses  and  for  auricular  confes- 
sion. The  Catholic  view  of  the  sacrament  was  de- 
fended by  R.  Smythe." 

When  the  Reformation  again  advanced,  under  the 
Reign  of  Edward  VI,  it  assumed  a  distinctly  Bucerian 
and  Calvinistic  turn.  Bucer  was  at  Oxford,  busy  draw- 
ing up  formulas  and  liturgies.  Coverdale  translated 
Calvin's  Treatise  on  the  Sacrament  (1546).^^  Other 
works  of  Calvin  and  of  Bullinger  began  to  appear  on 
the  subject.^*  In  fact  the  English  church  became 
Calvinistic  in  doctrine. 

The  general  adoption  of  this  variety  of  opinion  was 
accompanied  by  a  vigorous  repudiation  of  Luther's 
theories.  Thus,  on  June  19,  1548,  John  Hooper  wrote 
from  Zurich  to  Bucer: 

I  entreat  you,  my  master,  not  to  say  or  write  anything  against 
charity  or  godliness   for   the   sake  of  Luther,   or   to   burden  the  con- 

^^  31  Henry  VIII,  cap.  xli. 

^2  The  Assertion  and  Defense  of  the  sacraments  of  the  aulter. 
Compyled  and  made  by  mayster  Richard  Smythe.  1546.  He  was.  an 
Oxford  don. 

13  M.  Coverdale's  Works,  ed.  Parker  Soc. 

1*  Tiuo  Epystles,  one  of  Henry  BuUynger  .  .  .  an  other  of  John 
Caluyne  .  .  .  ivhether  it  be  laivfull  for  a  chrysten  man  to  com- 
municate or  be  a  partaker  of  the  masse  of  the  papysts,  without  of- 
fending God  and  hys  neyghbour  or  not.    London.     1548. 


2o6  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

sciences  of  men  with  his  words  on  the  holy  supper.  Ahhough  I 
readily  acknowledge  with  thankfulness  the  gifts  of  God  in  him  who 
is  now  no  more,  yet  he  was  not  without  his  faults  .  .  .  After  the 
dispute  with  Zwingli  and  Oecolampadius  respecting  the  Supper  had 
begun  to  grow  warm  he  did  violence  to  many  passages  of  Scripture 
.  .  .  that  he  might  establish  the  corporeal  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  bread  .  .  .  Everyone  is  aware,  too,  with  what  calumny  and 
reproaches  he  attacked  even  the  dead.^'' 

The  Protestant  Bishop  Horn  In  1576  called  Luther- 
anism  a  great  disturber  of  Christianity;"  William 
Turner,  Dean  of  Wells,  classed  Lutherans  with  wolves, 
papists,  Sadducees  and  Herodians,  and  Archbishop 
Grindal  called  them  "semi-papists."  It  has  been  con- 
jectured that  in  the  Fairy  Queen  Spenser  pilloried  Lu- 
theranism  as  the  "false  image"  of  Una,  the  English 
church."  In  1597  Hooker  said:  "So  they  do  all 
plead  God's  omnlpotency  .  .  .  the  patrons  of 
transubstantiation  .  .  .  and  the  followers  of  con- 
substantiation,  or  kneading  up  of  both  substances  as 
it  were  into  one  lump."  ^^  When  Captain  Henry  Bell 
translated  Luther's  Table  Talk  (1652),  he  persuaded 
the  committee  of  the  House  of  Commons  appointed  to 
examine  it  that  it  was  "an  excellent  divine  work,  worthy 
of  light  and  publishing,  especially  in  regard  that 
Luther,  in  the  said  discourses,  did  revoke  his  opinion, 
which  he  formerly  held,  touching  Consubstantiation  in 
the  Sacrament."  ^^  There  is,  of  course,  nothing  to 
this  purpose  in  the  German  Tischreden;  whether  Bell 
forged  a  passage  or  merely  informed  the  committee, 

15  Original  Letters,  i.  46.  • 

'^^  Zurich  Letters,  i.  321.  ~ 
"Padelford,  26  f. 

1^  Ecclesiastical  Politry,  V,  Ixvii,  §  10. 

19  Colloquia  Mensalia,  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther,  translated   by   Cap- 
tain Henry  Bell.  London.  1652,  Bell's  prefatory  letter. 
^^  True  Religion    (1673),   Works,  1851,  409. 


THE  BRITISH  REFORMERS  207 

contrary  to  the  truth,  that  Luther  had  revoked  his 
former  error,  I  have  not  had  leisure  to  determine. 
In  one  place  he  did  tamper  with  the  original  so  far 
as  to  introduce  the  name  of  John  Calvin  among  Luth- 
er's list  of  the  saved.  Twenty  years  later  Milton  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  "the  Lutherans  hold  consub- 
stantiation;  an  error,  indeed,  but  not  mortal." 

Cardinal  Allen  was  fairly  safe  in  saying  that 
the  Protestants  "denied  that  the  sacraments  gave  grace 
and  that  Christ  was  present  on  the  altar."  ^^  Cranmer, 
indeed,  wavered,  at  one  time  stating  that  "as  we  have 
God  verily  incarnate  for  our  redemption,  so  should  we 
have  him  impanate."  ^^  But  he  confesses  later  to  have 
changed  his  opinion, ^^  and  to  believe  that  Christ  was 
only  present  in  the  Supper  in  the  same  sense  as  he  was 
present  at  baptism,^*  and  that  evil  men  do  not  eat  his 
body.^^  In  his  Defence  of  the  True  and  Catholic 
Doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  (1550),  he  defended  the 
view  set  forth  in  the  Prayer  Book,  that  there  was  a 
real  presence  in  "the  godly  using  of  the  eucharist,  but 
that  this  was  spiritual  and  not  corporeal.^® 

In  the  Calvinistic  sense,  the  English  Reformers 
maintained  the  real  presence.  That  is,  they  called  the 
words  "This  is  my  body"  a  trope,-''  and  denied  "cor- 
poreal presence"  or  any  transmutation  of  the  elements; 
while  they  diligently  asserted  that  the  heavenly  bread 
was,  nevertheless,  food  for  the  soul  which  truly  made 

21  In  1565;  M.  Haile:  An  Elizabethan  Cardinal,  fV.  Allen.  London. 
1914,  p.  66. 

^^  Defence  (1550),  33a. 

23  Works,  ed.  Parker  Soc,  ii.  217. 

^^  Ibid.,  I.  76. 

25  Ibid.,  i.  29. 

26  Pollard:  Political  History  of  England  1547-1603,  p.  51. 

27  Archbishop  Grindal,  Remains,  ed.  Parker  Soc,  195  ff. 


2o8  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

believers  a  part  of  Chrlst,^^  and  that  the  body  was  In 
a  true  sense  spiritually  eaten, ^^  and  that,  though  the 
elements  are  merely  signs,  yet  they  really  nourish  the 
soul  with  Christ.^" 

All  the  English  Reformers  rejected  the  sacrifice  of 
the  mass,  though  they  had  no  little  ado  to  explain 
away  the  fact  that  "al  the  doctours  wyth  one  accorde 
cal  the  sacrament  so  ernestly  a  sacrifice."  They  could 
not  otherwise  understand  them  than  as  meaning  that 
the  sacrament  is  a  memorial  of  Christ's  sacrifice.  That 
it  is  really  no  sacrifice  is  proved  by  Christ's  words  at 
the  passover,  "I  will  no  more  eate  of  it  henceforth  tyll 
it  be  fulfylled  in  the  kyngdom  of  god."  ^^  Christ's 
oblation  on  the  cross  was,  in  fact,  "omni-sufl^cient."  ^^ 
In  like  manner  the  "high  mass"  was  declared  to  be  a 
"low  abomination,"  ^^  and  of  course  private  masses 
were  anathematized.  In  order  to  indicate  their  detes- 
tation of  the  Catholic  doctrine,  in  Mary's  reign  some 
Protestants  took  a  cat,  shaved  its  head,  dressed  it  like 
a  priest,  and  hung  it  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  London 
with  a  wafer  in  its  mouth. ^* 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Elizabeth,  based  on  Ed- 
ward VI's  Forty-two  Articles,  which  in  turn  were 
largely  drawn  from  the  Wittenberg  Articles  of  1536, 
take  a  rather  more  conservative  position  than  do  most 
of  the  doctors  just  quoted.  Article  28  reads:  "The 
Bread  which  we  break  is  a  partaking  of  the  Body  of 
Christ;  and  likewise  the  Cup  of  Blessing  is  a  partaking 

28  R.  Hutchinson,  Works,  ed.  Parker     Soc,  209  ff. 

29  Beacon:  Catechism,  ed.  Parker  Soc,  228  ff. 

30 J.  Jewel:  JVorks,  ed.  Parker  Soc,  ii.  1121;  J.  Bradford,  Writ- 
ings, ed.  Parker  Soc,  82  ff. 

3iTyndale:  Brief  Declaration  of  the  Sacraments. 

32  Preface  to  the  Tivo  Epy sties  of  Bulling er  and  Calvin,  1548. 

33  J.  Jewel:  JVorks,  ii.  625. 

^i  Diary  of  H.  Machyn,  ed.  J.  G.  Nichols,  1848,  p.  59. 


THE  BRITISH  REFORMERS  209 

of  the  Blood  of  Christ."  Transubstantiation  Is  de- 
clared to  be  repugnant  to  Scripture  and  the  occasion  of 
many  superstitions.  The  body  of  Christ  is  eaten  only 
after  a  spiritual  and  heavenly  manner.  It  is  stated 
that  the  Sacrament  is  not,  by  Christ's  ordinance,  re- 
served, lifted  up,  or  worshiped. 

As  liturgy  is  the  most  unchanging  portion  of  relig- 
ion, so  the  English  Prayer  Book  keeps  many  of  the  old 
Catholic  words,  explained,  at  the  time  of  its  adoption, 
in  a  new  sense.  A  prayer  in  the  Communion  Service 
speaks  of  "eating  the  flesh  of  thy  dear  Son  Jesus 
Christ  and  drinking  his  blood  in  these  holy  mysteries." 
An  oblation  is  made  in  the  following  words:  "We  do 
celebrate  and  make  here  before  thy  Divine  Majesty, 
with  these  thy  holy  gifts,  which  we  now  offer  unto 
thee,  the  memorial  thy  Son  hath  commanded."  "Ac- 
cept this  our  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving." 
"Here  we  offer  and  present  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  our- 
selves, our  souls  and  bodies,  to  be  a  reasonable,  holy 
and  living  sacrifice  unto  thee."  ^^ 

Taking  the  communion  in  the  established  church  be- 
came the  test  of  orthodoxy,  and  was  accordingly  en- 
joined by  law.  Even  members  of  other  bodies  were 
compelled  to  do  it  occasionally.  A  very  singular  com- 
pliance with  the  law  was  allowed,  in  that  the  commun- 
ion was  at  times  permitted  to  be  vicarious,  one  man 
taking  the  bread  and  wine  for  another.^^ 

The  divines  of  the  Anglican  Church  continued  to 
maintain  the  real  presence,  though  they  showed  an  in- 
creasing consciousness  of  its  difficulties.  Thus,  Jeremy 
Taylor,  in  his  tract  on  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in 

^^  Prayer  Books:  Communion.  Practically  the  same  in  the  editions 
of  1549,  1552,  1662,  and  in  the  Scotch  Liturgy  of  1637;  Tabular  Vieiv, 
p.   52. 

36  Frere,  for  period  1536-75. 


210  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

the  Sacrament,  wrote:  "It  was  happy  for  Christendom 
when  she,  in  this  article,  maintained  the  same  simplicity 
which  she  was  always  bound  to  do;  .  .  .  that  is, 
to  believe  the  thing  heartily  and  not  to  inquire  cur- 
iously." While  devoting  most  of  his  space  to  argu- 
ment against  transubstantiation  he  asserts  that  "the 
symbols  become  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  after  a  sacramental,  that  is,  after  a  spiritual 
real  manner."  ^'^ 

The  dissenting  churches  mostly  followed  the  lead  of 
Calvin  in  asserting  a  real  presence.  The  revision  of 
the  Articles  of  Religion  made  by  the  Synod  of  West- 
minster—  practically  a  Presbyterian  body  —  in  1647, 
after  declaring  against  the  dogma  of  the  sacrifice  and 
against  transubstantiation,  says:  "Worthy  receiv- 
ers, outwardly  partaking  the  visible  elements  in  this 
sacrament,  do  then  also  inwardly  by  faith,  really  and 
indeed,  yet  not  carnally  nor  corporeally,  but  spiritually, 
receive  and  through  faith  feed  upon  Christ  crucified 
and  all  the  benefits  of  his  death.  The  unworthy  are 
said  not  to  receive  his  body.^^ 

The  spirit  of  the  Scotch  Reformation,  late  and  ex- 
treme, was  that  of  Calvin,  and  its  representative  was 
John  Knox.  In  1555  he  was  in  Scotland,  after  a  so- 
journ at  Geneva,  preaching  passionately  against  the 
mass.  Four  years  later  he  had  the  satisfaction  of 
seeing  "the  priests  commanded,  under  pain  of  death, 
to  desist  from  their  blasphemous  mass."  ^^    In  a  decree 

37  In  The  Vl^hole  Works  of  Jeremy  Taylor,  ed.  R.  Heber,  1839, 
vols.  9  and  ro.  A  tract  entitled  "The  Worthy  Communicant,"  on  the 
benefits  of  the  eucharist  and  the  proper  manner  of  receiving  it,  is 
found  in  volume  15. 

38Schaff:  Creeds,  663   ff. 

39  Knox  to  Anna  Lock,  June  23,  1559,  Kidd,  698.  Smith:  The  Age 
of  the  Reformation,  357  ff. 


THE  BRITISH  REFORMERS  211 

of  August  24,  1560,  the  Scotch  Parliament  abolished 
both  papal  jurisdiction  and  the  mass,  calling  it  "wickit 
Idolatrie"  and  providing  that  "na  maner  of  person 
nor  personis  say  Messe,  nor  yit  heir  Messe,  nor  be 
present  thairat  under  the  pane  of  confiscatioune  of  all 
thair  gudis  movable  and  unmovable  and  puneissing  of 
thair  bodeis  at  the  discretioun  of  the  magistrat."  All 
officers  are  commanded  to  "tak  diligent  sute  and  In- 
quisitioun"  to  prevent  it/^  In  the  Scots  Confession 
of  the  same  year  it  is  said:  "In  the  Supper  richtlie  used 
Christ  Jesus  is  so  joined  with  us,  that  hee  becummis 
very  nurishment  and  fude  of  our  saules  .  .  .  We 
confesse  and  undoubtedlie  beleeve  that  the  faithful,  in 
the  richt  use  of  the  Lord's  Table,  do  so  eat  the  body 
and  drinke  the  blude  of  the  Lord  Jesus  that  he  remains 
in  them  and  they  in  him:  Yea,  they  are  so  maid  flesh 
of  his  flesh  and  bone  of  his  bones,  that  as  the  eternal 
Godhead  has  given  to  the  flesh  of  Christ  Jesus 
life  and  immortalitie,  so  dois  Christ  Jesus  his  flesh  and 
blude  eattin  and  drunkin  be  us,  give  us  the  same  pre- 
rogatives." *^  One  of  the  best  established  laws  of 
heredity  is  that  known  as  reversion  to  type;  a  certain 
individual,  sprung  from  recently  developed  stock, 
shows  the  characteristics  of  remote  ancestry.  It  al- 
most seems  that  the  ancestry  of  the  "unco  pious"  Pro- 
testants at  times  harked  back  to  a  remoter  civilization 
than  that  of  the  Catholics.  The  Calvinistic  Scots' 
confession  would  have  delighted  Luther  and  Justin 
Martyr,  and,  miitato  niimine,  the  Thracian  mystes  of 
Dionysus. 


40Kidd,  702. 

*i  E.  R.  E.,  V.  560. 


XIII.     THE  LAST  PHASE 

It  is  significant  that  Harnack's  great  History  of 
Dogma  closes  with  the  age  of  the  Reformation.  Then 
at  Augsburg,  at  Trent,  at  Geneva,  and  at  Westminster, 
were  fixed  the  official  formulas  of  the  faith  of  the  main 
Christian  bodies.  These  formulas  have  been  rarely 
set  aside  or  radically  altered  during  the  last  three  hun- 
dred years;  they  may  be  interpreted  in  new  ways,  but 
they  are  not  often  revised.  If  we  wish  to  find  out 
what  liberal  Protestants  or  Catholic  Modernists  are 
thinking  about  the  eucharist,  we  no  longer  find  their 
opinions  written  large  in  confessions  and  public  de- 
bates, but  lurking  in  treatises  on  church  history  or  on 
New  Testament  criticism.  In  these  works  we  do  in- 
deed discover  that  Christianity  has  become  much  ra- 
tionalized. The  change,  though  silent,  is  so  important 
that  Ernest  Troeltsch  and  Edward  Moore,  among 
others,  are  perfectly  right  in  insisting  that  the  greatest 
break  in  the  continuity  of  historical  Christianity  came 
not  in  the  sixteenth  but  in  the  eighteenth  century.  In 
this  particular  article  of  the  eucharist  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  the  large  majority  of  Protestants  are  now  Zwing- 
lians  or  pure  rationalists.  They  not  only  hold  the 
bread  and  wine  to  be  mere  symbols  but  they  are  unable 
to  imagine  how  sensible  people,  and  particularly  how 
Jesus  and  Paul,  Luther  and  Calvin,  ever  regarded  them 
as  anything  else. 

But  along  with  growing  rationalism  there  has  of 


THE  LAST  PHASE  213 

late  been  in  certain  quarters  a  strong  revival  and  inten- 
sification of  sacramentalism;  a  deliberate  abnegation  of 
reason  in  the  mysteries  of  religion,  and  a  deliberate  cul- 
tivation of  the  primitive  and  irrational.  In  the  Roman 
Catholic  church  the  cult  of  the  host  has  been  plied  with 
such  zeal  that  Leo  XIII  foretold  that  the  holy  eucharist 
was  destined  to  be  the  main  object  of  devotion  of 
the  twentieth  century;  and  that  Pius  X  has  done  his 
utmost  to  fulfill  this  prophecy.^  I  have  before  me  the 
Ven'ite  Adoremus  Bulletin  published  semi-annually  by 
the  Dominican  nuns  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Holy 
Name,  2824  Melrose  Avenue,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  no.  i, 
August  I,  1916.  This  bulletin  is  published  in  the  in- 
interest  of  an  association  for  the  purpose  of  adoring 
the  Blessed  Sacrament,  which  is  perpetually  exposed. 
That  the  association  now  has  one  thousand  members 
is  said  to  be  "consoling  proof  that  our  Eucharistic 
Lord  here  in  our  midst  is  not  without  friends." 
"Striking  examples  of  direct  answers  to  prayer"  are 
quoted,  and  a  form  of  prayer  prescribed  in  these 
words:  "Our  Lady  of  the  Most  Blessed  Sacrament, 
pray  for  us,"  with  three  hundred  days  indulgence  to 
the  petitioner  for  each  time  that  he  utters  it  before  the 
exposed  host.  The  writers  "know  that  the  practice  of 
exposition  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is  growing 
throughout  the  world." 

While  there  has  been,  of  course,  no  change  in  the 
dogmas  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on  this  point, 
some  modification  of  them  may  be  found  in  the  creed 
of  the  Old  Catholics  who  split  from  the  main  church 
after  the  Vatican  Council  of  187 1.     In  their  opinion 

1  Note  by  J.  Rickaby,  S.  J.,  in  his  edition  of  The  Spiritual  Exer- 
cises of  St.  Ignatius  Loyola,  1915,  p.  84. 


214  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

the  body  and  blood  are  truly  present  and  the  mass, 
though  not  a  sacrifice,  has  a  sacrificial  character  as  an 
enduring  memorial  of  the  death  of  Christ.^ 

-The  evolution  of  most  Protestant  bodies  has  been  in 
a  liberal  direction.  In  the  year  1720  the  Protestant 
Jacques  Abbadie  subjected  the  consecrated  bread  and 
wine  to  a  variety  of  tests  to  prove  that  they  were 
really  what  they  seemed  to  be  and  had  undergone  no 
chemical  change.  This  work  was  translated,  as  doc- 
trine necessary  to  be  preached,  by  an  English  evan- 
gelical in  1867.^ 

Some  theologians  and  philosophers  have  tried  to 
find  new  justifications  for  the  old  ways  of  liturgy. 
Thus  Leibnitz  found  in  the  Newtonian  theory  of  grav- 
itation a  support  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence.  If,  he  argued,  the  sun  can  attract  a  grain 
of  sand  on  the  earth,  millions  of  miles  away,  thus  act- 
ing at  a  distance,  cannot  Christ's  body  act  at  a  distance 
on  the  bread,  thus  enabling  us  to  partake  of  the 
Saviour's  flesh  and  blood,  even  though  they  are  far 
from  us  ?  * 

For  a  certain  section  of  the  Lutheran  church  the 
formula  of  Concord  has  done  what  the  Council  of 
Trent  did  for  the  Catholics;  it  has  bound  their  thought 
in  a  rigid  mould.  The  latest  orthodox  Lutheran  the- 
ologtan,  while  rejecting  the  words  "consubstantiation," 
"impanation,"  and  "subpanation,"  and  while  regarding 
the  mode  of  divine  operation  as  an  inscrutable  mystery, 
accepts  both  the  real  presence  and  the  ubiquity  theory 

2  Mirbt,  437. 

3  J.  Abbadie:  Chemical  Change  in  the  Eucharist,  translated  by 
J.  W.  Hamersly.  1867. 

4W.  E.  H.  Lecky:  History  of  England  in  the  iSth  Century,  1878, 
II.  571.    I  have  searched  Leibnitz's  works  for  the  passage,  but  in  vain. 


THE  LAST  PHASE  215 

of  Christ's  body.  Jesus  is  present  everywhere,  he 
says,  "in  the  unity  and  entirety  of  his  theanthropic 
person,  and  especially  present  when  and  where  he  wills 
to  be,"  For  the  author  the  sacred  food  itself  has  the 
same  old  magic  and  the  Supper  is  called  "a  means  of 
applying  redemption."  ^ 

But  while  these  views  still  obtain  in  the  conserva- 
tive Lutheran  circles,  especially  in  America,  there  are 
branches  of  the  same  church,  particularly  in  Germany, 
where  the  great  Reformer's  specific  doctrines  have 
fallen  into  what  Grisar  calls  "automatic  dissolution" 
(Selbstauflosung).*'  Many  German  theologians  now 
feel  that  there  was  a  contradiction  between  Luther's 
principles  and  many  of  the  beliefs  which  he  took  over 
from  the  old  church.  Thus  his  appeal  to  the  private 
judgment  annihilates  his  later  appeal  to  authority;  his 
principle  of  justification  by  faith  really  destroys  the 
sacramental  theory  which,  illogically,  he  attempted  to 
impose  on  his  followers.^  If  he  denied  transubstanti- 
ation  he  kept  a  miracle  equally  irrational;  and  he  sup- 
ported his  theory  of  the  real  presence  with  hypotheses 
which  a  modern  theologian  calls  "Chrlstologlcal  mon- 
strosities." ^  In  fine,  the  advanced  German  Christian 
thought  is  now  in  favor  of  giving  up  the  sacraments 
entirely,  in  the  first  place  as  repugnant  to  the  teachings 
of  science,  and  secondly  as  contradicting  the  funda- 
mental ideas  of  Protestantism,  "the  Word,"  and  faith. ^ 

Whereas  In  many  Protestant  sects  the  dogma  of  the 
real  presence  has  been  silently  abandoned,  in  a  few  It 

5  Valentine,  ii,  335,  344,  356  f. 

6  Grisar,  ii,  389  ff. 
^  Harnack,  iii,  868. 
^  Loofs,  p.  920. 

9  R.  G.  G.,  i.    78. 


2i6  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

has  been  either  officially  repudiated  or  dropped  from 
the  creeds.  The  Socinians,  In  the  Racovlan  Catechism 
of  1609,  expressely  rejected  the  Catholic,  Lutheran, 
and  Calvlnistic  doctrines  of  the  eucharlst,  and  called 
the  rite  merely  symbolic  and  memorial.  The  Quakers, 
In  order  to  put  the  whole  emphasis  on  faith,  abolished 
the  rite  altogether.  When  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson 
proposed  to  do  the  same,  on  the  ground  that  the  ma- 
terial act  was  now  a  positive  hindrance  to  piety,  he 
found  the  Unitarians  unable  to  follow  him,  and  there- 
fore gave  up  the  ministry.^^  But  though  they  still 
celebrate  the  Supper,  the  Unitarians  demand  no  article 
of  faith  on  this  or  any  other  subject  from  their  adher- 
ents, and  other  churches,  such  as  the  Baptists  and 
Congregatlonalists,^^  seem  to  be  completely  silent  on 
the  question  of  the  real  presence,  which  Is  doubtless 
answered  in  the  negative  by  nearly  all  of  their  mem- 
bers.^* The  Christian  Scientists,  under  the  influence 
of  the  New  England  transcendalists,  use  no  bread  and 
wine  in  their  communion,  but  teach:  "Our  bread  Is 
truth.    Our  cup  is  the  cross."  ^^^ 

In  churches  of  the  Anglican  communion  there  is  a 
large  body  of  evangelical  members  who  interpret  the 
eucharlst  symbolically.  Though  this  view  still  has 
some  support  among  the  theologians,^^  the  trend  of 

I'^Harnack:  Dogmengeschichte,  iii,  756  f. 

1^  £.  R.  E.,  V,  564.  Confession  of  the  Friends,  1675,  Schaff:  Creeds, 
iii,  797. 

12  R.  W.  Emerson:  The  Lord's  Supper.  A  Sermon  before  the 
Second  Church  of  Boston,  September  g,  1832. 

13  A  very  short  Congregational  Creed,  with  no  statement  on  this 
subject,  was  adopted  about  1912. 

1*  The  real  presence  is  not  mentioned  in  the  New  Hampshire  Bap- 
tist Confession  of   1833;   Schaff:  Creeds,  iii,  747. 

1*^  S.  Mathews  and  S.  B.  Smith:  Dictionary  of  Religion  and 
Ethics,  1921,  p.  89. 

1^  G.    Hodges:    Everman's    Religion,    1812,    p.    247,    writes:    "The 


THE  LAST  PHASE  217 

prelatical  opinion  is  now  strongly  in  the  direction  of 
sacramentalism  and  a  "high"  doctrine  of  the  eucharist 
or  "mass."  The  Tractarian  Movement  of  the  Nine- 
teenth century  started  this  re-action  which,  in  so  far  as 
it  concerned  the  eucharist  was  represented  by  a  sermon 
by  Edward  Bouverie  Pusey,  on  "The  Presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,"  preached  in  1853.  In 
order  to  defend  his  thesis  of  "a  real,  objective  pres- 
ence," he  published  two  other  works,  which  had  a  con- 
siderable vogue  and  doubtless  brought  the  church  of 
England  back  to  her  sixteenth-century  position/"  In- 
deed, the  late  Frederic  Temple,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, in  a  Charge  to  his  Clergy,  delivered  in  1898, 
stated  that  the  Anglican  theory  of  the  real  presence  i 
was  hard  to  distinguish  from  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
consubstantiation.  This  statement,  according  to  Hens- 
ley  Henson,  now  Bishop  of  Hereford,  was  received 
by  the  Anglican  "Catholics,"  "in  disgust  of  the  sug- 
gestion that  they  stood  in  the  matter  of  eucharistic 
doctrine  with  the  protagonist  of  Protestantism."  " 

So  far  has  the  high  church  doctrine  gone  that  an 
episcopal  clergyman  recently  told  me  that  he  thought 
no  "Zwinglian"  ought  to  be  allowed  to  communicate 
in  his  church.  The  same  priest  elevated  the  "host," 
communicated  alone,  and  spoke  of  "the  sacrifice  of  the 
mass."  More  extraordinary  than  the  re-action  of  the 
conservatives  is  the  fact  that  the  same  sacramentalism 
has  received  some  support  in  liberal  quarters.  Mrs. 
Humphrey  Ward's  novel,  Richard  Meynel,  portrays 

sentence  ('this  is  my  body')  is  but  a  symbol,  and  for  us  a  remote  and 
difficult   symbol,   of  participation    and   intimacy." 

16  The  Doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  1855.  The  Real  Presence 
.     .     .     the  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  En ff land,  1857. 

1'' J.  C.  Lambert,  277,  note  i. 


21 8  CHRISTIAN  THEOPHAGY 

a  priest  who  combines  high  liturgical  practices  with  ad- 
vanced liberal  views.  The  best  defense  of  this  posi- 
tion that  has  come  to  my  attention  is  that  given  by 
Professor  Kirsopp  Lake/*  According  to  him  the  sac- 
raments should  be  taken  not  as  assertions  of  historical 
truth,  but  as  judgments  of  spiritual  value.  There  are 
some  men,  he  says,  who  go  through  life  seeing  nothing 
but  the  happenings;  there  are  others  who  see  through 
the  events  a  deep  inner  meaning.  The  sacraments,  it 
is  said,  express  the  great  truths  of  the  inner  life  in 
outward  form.  The  error  in  this  view,  as  Professor 
Lake  pointed  out,  lies  in  the  limitation  of  such  values 
to  a  few  things;  any  experience  in  life  might  have  such 
a  value.  More  and  more,  the  rationalist  would  add, 
men  are  finding  the  needs  of  their  inner  life  supplied, 
and  their  value-judgments  given,  in  poetry,  in  art,  and 
in  science,  and  less  and  less  in  the  repetition  of  outworn 
survivals  from  a  primeval  state. 


^8  In    a    lecture    delivered    before    the    Harvard    Divinity    Summer 
School  on  Aug.  23,  1921. 


INDEX 


Abbadie,  J.,  214 

Abercius,   34 

Actaeon,  36 

Affelmann,  J.,  199  f 

Agape,  47  f,  59  f 

Agricola,  J.,   160 

Ailly,  Peter  d',  96,  99,  loi,  107 

Aino,  28 

Albert,  Duke  of  Prussia,  170 

Alcuin,  89 

Aleander,  iii 

Allen  W.,  207 

Ambrose,  80  f,  89,  iii 

Amsdorf,  Nicholas  von,  146 

Anabaptists,  164 

Anglican  Church,  216  f 

Apocalypse,  44,  59 

Apostolic  Church  Order,  76 

Apuleius,  41 

Aquinas,  84,  loi,  107,  183 

Arabs,    religion    of,    26 

Aricia,  35 

Aristotle,  79,  loi  f 

Armenia,  47 

Asklepios,  41 

Athens,   37 

Attis,  33,  42,  47,  73 

Augsburg,  Diet  of  (1530),  116, 
168  f;  Confession,  116  f,  121, 
161  f,  185  flF;  Interim,  186. 

Augustine,  81  f,  106  f,  156,  168 

Australian  religion,  27 

Aztecs,  28  f 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  69 

Bacon,  F.,  86 

Baden,   Conference   at,   153 

Baptism,   34 

Baptists,  216 

Barnes,  R.,  202 

Baronius,  89 

Basle,  Council  of,  98  ;  Conference 

at,  176 
Baur,  F.  C,  58 
Bede,  89 


Beham,  B.,  129 

Beham,  S.,  129 

Bell,  H.,  206  f 

Berengar,   82  f 

Bern  Disputation,  197 

Bible,   84;    exegesis   of,  49,   53 

Biel,  G.,  96 

Billican,  T.,  129  f 

Blaurer,  A.,  169,  171,  175,  199 

Blood,  religious  ideas   about,  41 

Bohemian  Brethren,  97  f,  loi,  126, 
177 

Book  of  Common  Prayer,  209 

Bousset,  W.,  54 

Boyneburg,  204 

Brahmans,  29 

Brenz,  J.,  147,  159 

Brittany,  76,  94 

Bucer,  M.,  1671!;  and  Carlstadt, 
128,  167;  at  Marburg,  159,  168; 
and  Luther,  167  ff;  and  Oecol- 
ampadius,  169;  and  Melanch- 
thon,  169,  171,  179;  tries  to 
compromise,  173 ;  reforms  Col- 
ogne, 179  f;  and  Calvin,  191; 
in  England,  205 

Bugenhagen,    J.,    145  f,    164,    196, 

Bullinger,  H.,  177,  179,  199,  205 

Buru,  28 

Caesarius  of  Heisterbach,  90 

Cajetan,    Cardinal,    118,    147  f 

Calvin,  J.,  190  ff;  on  Paul,  51; 
at  Ratisbon,  121 ;  and  Westphal, 
186;  and  Melanchthon,  187,  192 
ff ;  tries  to  take  middle  position, 
191  ff;  and  Bucer,  191;  and 
Luther,  192  ff;  and  Zwingli, 
190  ff;  against  Lutherans,  199; 
influence  in  England,  205 

Campeggio,  118 

Canon  Law,  84 

Capito,  W.  F.,  128,  131,  133,  144, 
162,   176 

Carus,  P.,  9 


220 


INDEX 


Carlstadt,  A.,  controversy  with 
Luther,  103,  113,  126  ff,  180; 
reforms  Wittenberg,  122  ff;  de- 
nies real  presence,  126  ff;  re- 
cants, 133;  and  Zwingli,  141  f 

Cheremiss,  27 

Chios,  39 

Christian,  Prince  of  Norway,  164 

Christianity,  and  Mithraism,  33 ; 
and  Orphism,  40  f;  and  the 
Mystaris,  43  ff,  51 ;  early  charges 
against,  55;  Jewish,  58  ff 

Christopher,  St.,  73 

Chrysostom,  51,  75,  80,  160 

Cicero,  42 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  72  f,  79 

Clement  of  Rome,  56,  71 

Cochlaeus,  J.,  iii  f,  116 

Cologne,  Synod  of,  89  f ;  Refor- 
mation of  179  f 

Congregationalists,  216 

Consensus   Tigurinus,    198  f 

Consubstantiation,  8,  95  ff,  99,  107, 
207,  214  f 

Contarini,  121 

Conybeare,  F.  C,  51,  56 

Corpus  Christi,  Feast  of,  37,  85  f, 
146 

Coverdale,  M.,  205 

Crete,   36,   38 

Cumont,  F.,  9 

Cup,  in  communion,  given  to  or 
withdrawn  from  the  laity,  85  ff, 
99,  108,   III  ff,  123  ff 

Cyprian,  44,  73  f,   156,   160 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  73,  75,  80,  160 

Damascus,   52,  59 

Dante,  93 

Delfino,  187 

Delphi,  37  f 

Demeter,  37 

Denmark,    Frederic    I.,    King    of, 

164 
Didache,  60,  66  ^^ 

Didascalia,  74 
Dionysus,  36  ff 
Docetae,  64 
Durand,  95 

EcK,  J.,  116  f,  130,  147 


Egypt,  31  f 

Eleusinian  Mysteries,  37 

Emerson,  R.  W.,  216 

Emser,  J.,  116,  145 

Ephesus,    46,  48,  59,  64  ff 

CTTiowtos)  45  f>  154 

Erasmus,  91,  137  f,  148  ff 

Essenes,  48 

Eucharist,  history  of  the  doctrine 

of,   8,  passim 
Eugenius  IV,  Pope,  90 
Euripides,  38  ff 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  74 

Farel,  W.,  196  f 

Fasting,  28 

First-fruits,  27  ff 

Fish,    symbol    of   Christ,    33  f,    63 

Fisher,  J.,  148 

Flensburg,  Disputation  at,  164 

Formula  of  Concord,   188  f 

Fox,  E.,  203 

Frazer,  Sir  J.  G.,  27  ff 

Frederic,  Elector  of  Saxony,  123  ff 

Gardner,  P.,  51,  70 

Geneva,    197  f 

Gerbel,  N.,  128,  131,  144,  153 

Glaber,  R.,  91 

Gnostics,  44,  70,  79 

God,  primitive  ideas  of,  24  f 

Grail,  93  f 

Greek  Catholic  Church,   33 

Greek  religion,  35  ff 

Gregory  I  the  Great,  Pope,  82 

Gregory  VII,  Pope,  91 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  80,  90 

Grisar,  H.,  215 

Hagenau,  Conference  at,  177  f 

Hamlet,  35 

Haner,  J.,  154 

Hansk,  M.,98 

Harnack,    A.    von,    85  f,    89,    100, 

200,  212 
Heath,  N.,  203 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  60  f,  139 
Hedio,  C,  153,   156,  159 
Hegge,  J.,  164 
Henry  IV,  Emperor,  87 
Henry  VII,  Emperor,  92 


INDEX 


221 


Henry    VIII,    King    of    England, 

iiof,  202  ff 
Henson,  H.  H.,  217 
Hermas,  Shepherd  of,  60 
Hermetic  Literature,  57 
Hetzer,  L.,  146 
Hilarius,  156,  160 
Hindoos,  29  f 
Hippol)^us,  36 
Hoen,  see  Honius 
Hoensbroech,  Count,   30  f 
Hoffman,  M.,  164 
Holtzmann,  O.,  60 
Honius,  C,  96,  103  n.,  126,  141 
Hooker,  J.,   206 
Hooper,  J.,  205 
Horn,  206 
Horus,  54 
Huguenots,  88 
Huss,   J.,   97 

Ignatius,  71 

Incas,  28 

Indians   (American),  27 

Innocent  III,  Pope,  87 

Inquisition,  31 

Irenaeus,  73,  79,  156,  160 

Isis,   32,  41,   54 

Italian   Protestants,    179,   201 

James,  the  Apostle,  62 

James,  epistle  of,  45,   59 

Jerome,  8i 

Jerusalem,  58  f 

Jesus,  7  f,  43  f,  92 

Jewish  religion,  44  f,  48 

Jews  believed  to  blaspheme  host, 

93  ^ 

John  the  Apostle,  62 
John   the   Baptist's    Disciples,   46, 

48,  59,  64  ff 
John,  Gospel  and  Epistles  of,  62  ff 
Jonas,  J.,  116,  123  f,  178,  187 
Jud,  L.,  141,  150,  170 
Jude,   Epistle  of,  45,  48,   59 
Jupiter,    34 
Justin  Martyr,  33,  71  f 

Karg,  188 
Keller,  M.,  129 
Knox,  J.,  210  f 
Krautwald,  V.,  165 


Lake,  K.,  53,  218 

Lateran  Council,  Fourth,  55,  83  f 

Leibnitz,  G.  W.,  214 

Licinius  of  Tours,  77 

Lindsay,  T.  M.,   181 

Lithuania,  27 

Loisy,  A.,  43,  61 

Lombard,  P.,  146 

Loofs,   F.,   189 

Lucas  von  Prag,  103  n 

Lucian,  34 

Luke,  writings  of,  45,  59,  61  ff,  76 

Luther,  M.,  99-185;  exegesis  of, 
26  n;  growing  conservatism,  70; 
on  etymology  of  mass,  89 ;  op- 
poses Catholics,  99-121 ;  contro- 
versy with  Carlstadt,  126-136; 
does  not  appeal  to  reason,  99  f; 
his  agonies,  104;  faith,  106; 
controversy  with  Zwingli,  142  ff, 
176  f;  at  Marburg,  158  ff;  and 
Schwenckfeld,  165  f;  and  Bucer, 
167  ff;  Short  Confession,  180; 
and  Melanchthon,  183  ff;  influ- 
ence in  England,  202  ff 

Magic,  85,  89  ff 

Malas,  30 

Malory,  Sir  T.,  92 

Mana,  24  f 

Marburg,  Colloquy  of,  158  ff,  168 

Marcourt,  A.  de,  197 

Margaret,  Queen  of  Navarre,  201 

Mark,  Gospel  of,  58,  61  ff 

Martyr,  P.,  186 

Mary,  images  of,  eaten,  30  f 

Mass,  23 ;  sacrifice  of,  23,  56  ff 
61,  99  ff,  108  ff,  120,  122,  138  f, 
208;  the  word,  89,  139;  as  a 
good  work,  99  ff ;  private,  115  ff, 
123  ff 

Matthew,  Gospel  of,  63 

Maulbron,  Debate  at,  i88 

McGiffert,  A.   C,   195,  200 

Melaine  of  Rennes,  77 

Melanchthon,  113,  183  ff;  on  ety- 
mology of  mass,  89 ;  prefers 
Catholics  to  Zwinglians,  116, 
i84f;  and  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion,  121 ;   reforms  Wittenberg, 


222 


INDEX 


122  S,  183;  and  Carlstadt,  131; 
and  Oecolampadius,  138,  171  f, 
185;  at  Marburg,  158  ff;  and 
Bucer,  169,  171;  and  Wittenberg 
Concord,  175;  reforms  Cologne, 
179;  and  Luther,  181,  183  flE; 
on  artolatry,  187;  influence  in 
England,   203 

Milton,  J.,  207 

Mithraism,  32  f,  72 

Monophysite  Church,  47 

Moore,  E.  C,  212 

Morone,  178 

Miinzer,  T.,  132 

Murner,  T.,  109 

Murray,  Gilbert,  35,  39 

Myconius,  F.,  204 

Mystery  Religions,  7,  31  ff,  36  ff, 
51,  56 

Neobulus,   173 
Nigeria,  27 
Nilus,  26 
Nimes,  76 

OcKAM,  William  of,  95 

Odes  of  Solomon,  46,  64,  67 

Oecolampadius,  J.,  137-163;  and 
Luther,  131,  142  ff,  180;  char- 
acter, 138;  reforms,  141;  and 
Carlstadt,  142;  rejects  real 
presence,  146  ff;  at  Marburg. 
159  ff;  and  Schwenckfeld,  165; 
and  Bucer,  169;  and  Melanch- 
thon,  171  f,  185 

Old   Catholics,  213  f 

Orestes,  35 

Origen,  46 

Orphism,  36,  39  f 

Osiander,  51,  159 

Osiris,  32,  54 

Paraclesus,   151 

Parsimonius,  J.,   199 

Paul,  the  Apostle,  originates  the 
Eucharist,  7,  43  ff,  78  f;  on  the 
first-fruits,  28 ;  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  48  f;  his  vis- 
ions, 49  ff ;  knew  the  Mysteries, 
51  ff;  56  f;  contests  with  the 
Jewish  Christians,  58  ff;  Epistle 
to  the  Collosians,  61 


Paulicians,  74 

Peebles,  R.  J.,  77  n 

Pellican,   C,   151 

Pentz,   G.,   129 

Persia,  32 

Peter,  the  Apostle,  58 

Peter,  Epistles  of,  45,  47,  59 

Philip   the  Evangelist,   76 

Philip,  Landgrave  of  Hesse,   158, 

171 
Philo,  45,  67  f 
Phrygia,  33 

Pico  della  Mirandola,  96 
Pirckheimer,  W.,  145,   149  f,   154 
Pirke  Aboth,  49  f 
Plato,  37 
Pliny,  37,  72 
Plummer,  A.,  52 
Plutarch,  38 
Prophery,  31 
Protestantism,  200 
Pseudo-Clementine     Recognitions, 

57 
Pusey,  E.  B.,  217 

"Q,"  A  SOURCE  OF  THE   GoSPELS  OF 

Matthew  and  Luke,  8.,  44  ff, 

59 
Quakers,  216 

Radbert,  82  f ,  90 
Raphael  Sanzio,  92 
Ratisbon,  Colloquy  of,  I2i 
Ratramnus,   82  f 

Real   Presence,    passim,   7 ;    Paul, 
55  f;    Luther,    99  ff;    Carlstadt, 

I26ff 

Reformation,  7  f ,  102,  212 
Reinach,  S.,  43  n.,  49  n 
Reitzenstein,  R.,  51,  53  f 
Religion,   primitive,  22  ff 
Reuchlin,  89 
Rhegius,  U.,  129,  173 
Robertson,  A.,  52 
Rome,  33  ff 

Sacrament,  37,  40  f,  72 
Sallustius,  47 
Savonarola,   G.,   90 
Schenck,  199 

Schmalkaldic   Articles,   119 
Schmidt,  C,  44 


INDEX 


223 


Schnepf,  171 
Schweitzer,  A.,  62 
Schwenckfeld,  C.  von,  134,  164  ff, 

180,  193 
Scotus,  Duns,  105,  154 
Sex    and    religion,   25  f 
Siena,    30 

Smith,  William  Benjamin,  52 
Smith,   William   Robertson,   26 
Smith,  Winifred,  30  n 
Smythe,   R.,   205 
Socinians,   216 
Soden,  H.  Freiherr  von,  63 
Sparta,  31 
Spengler,  L.,  129 
Spenser,  E.,  206 
Stephen  of  Bourbon,  90 
Strauss,  J.,  146 
Stiibner,  M.  T.,  183 
Sturm,  J.,  158 
Sweden,  27 

Taboo,  24 

Taylor,  J.,  209  f 

Temple,  F.,  217 

Tenedos,  39 

Tertullian,   33,  48,  59,  63,  75,  194 

Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patri- 
archs, 57 

Theophylact,  160 

Thomas,  Acts  of,  70  f,  74 

Thronaki,  74 

Totemism,  25  ff 

Tractarian   Movement,  217 

Transubstantiation,  8,  78  ff;  re- 
jected by  Wyclif,  97 ;  rejected 
by  Luther,  106  f;  rejected  by 
Zwingli,  139;  rejected  by  the 
English  Reformers,  209 

Trent,  Council  of,  43  n,  44  n,  85  ff, 
186  f 

Troeltsch,  E.,  212 


Tunstall,  C,  204 
Turner,  W.,  206 
Tyndale,  W.,  204, 

Ulrich,   Duke  of  Wurttemberg, 
Unitarians,  216 

'  Valangin,  197 
Valentine,  M.,  214  f 
Veddas,   30 

Waldenses,  88 

Ward,  Mrs.  H.,  217  f 

Watt,  J.,  193 

Wessel,  J.,  96 

Westminster,  Synod  of,  210 

Westphal,  J.,   i86 

Wittenberg  Concord,  174  f 

Wolferinus,  S.,  178 

Women  in  the  early  church,  75  ff 

Wrede,  W.,  51 

Wurttemberg  Concord,   171 

Wyclif,  45  f,  96  f,  107 

Yorkshire,  27 

Zadokites,  52 

Zeus,  37  f 

Zurich,  170,  182 

Zwilling,  G.,   122  f 

Zwingli,  Ulrich,  137-163;  on  ety- 
mology of  mass,  89 ;  and  Luther, 
131,  170,  176  f,  180;  character, 
137;  reforms,  138  ff;  rejects 
real  presence,  141  ff;  and  Carl- 
stadt,  141  f;  at  Marburg,  150  ff, 
185;  and  Schwenckfeld,  i66; 
and  Bucer,  170;  and  Calvin, 
190  ff 

Zwinglians,   116 


Py"«[°"   Theolpgical  Seminary  Libraries 


_L1012  01195   6960 


DATE  DUE 

iUfSf^® 

piii 

HIGHSMITH  #45115 

